Handicaps that don't travel well

[RandomRaiderTTU]

I've been fighting this since I've started getting into more tournament golf, but was wondering if anyone else ran into similar problems.

Out here in West Texas, the courses I used to play on (just joined a Country Club, so hopefully this changes) didn't have many trees, which is typical for this region. That being said, you could hit a wayward shot and still get a club on it about 90% of the time and sometimes even a decent lie for patchy rough. This typically means lower scores than vs. a course that was more heavily wooded. The upside I guess is that I've become quite good at hitting off very tight hardpan dirt lies, but I do get to skip out on the difficulty vs. some other courses when you get way outside the fairway.

My problem is, the more I play other courses in more wooded areas, I find that my handicap doesn't travel worth a flip. I'm carrying a 9.6 right now, but recently went to Albuquerque, NM and played Sandia and Paa Ko Ridge and shot 96 and 95 respectively. Now, part of it was I think I was trying too hard on the front nines (first time playing these courses and they are TOUGH), because I shot 53-43 at Sandia and 51-44 at Paa Ko, but still.

Anyone else have an inflated handicap because of where you play?

I've joined a country club here in town finally and it has more trees than any other course I've played here in Lubbock and through two rounds, I can tell you that the trees are definitely penalizing, but usually just means you're scrambling for par but more likely to card a bogey. The course is harder (71.7, 126 from mid tees) so hopefully I'll begin to find out my "true handicap" but wondered if anyone else ran into stuff like this.

[opie]

I'm a member of a very tight and pretty long course lined by woods etc.. It's difficult and you must be VERY accurate. It's punishing if not. The old courses I played weren't this bad but I'm learning how wayward I really am and it's very frustrating. I was mad about shooting 85 in the past and right now if I shot 85 I'd be happy.. LOL

[DavidFehertysBike]

Youre always gonna be a couple of strokes higher (or more) on courses you dont know. I rarley shoot my handi on courses i play for the first time.

[clubchamp]

When I was college (in PA) we had a kid come from texas my soph year and he was 1 handicap. Never played in a match till his junior year because he had that hardest time with tree lined courses and any kind of elevation change.

[David in FL]

Different courses for different horses........

Take someone who's used to softer conditions and put them on a dry, hard, wind blown course in TX and watch them fold like a cheap tent.

Most of us just don't play in a wide variety of conditions. When we're forced outside of the conditions that we're used to, it shows.

[$2 Nassau]

Yeah, trees suck. Nothing but trees up here in the northeast. I've found that my handicap travels pretty well. The course I play at for my league (and other rounds) has a very low slope, but doesn't really feel like an easy course at all. So the handicap doesn't get too low.

[SubPar]

I've been fighting this since I've started getting into more tournament golf, but was wondering if anyone else ran into similar problems.

The handicap system is flawed because the course rating system does not do a very good job of reflecting relative course difficulty.

I am a 7.9 index and I play relatively wide open flat courses without many serious hazards. When I play more difficult courses I can never shoot a decent "net" score. The only way to get a more "true" handicap is to play a variety of courses with different levels of difficulty. SubPar

[cougar978]

I've been fighting this since I've started getting into more tournament golf, but was wondering if anyone else ran into similar problems.

I had the same issue when I first moved here from Albuquerque - all the courses in ABQ are pretty flat and you get at least a club's worth of extra carry because of the thin air. When I first played Deer Run seven years ago, I don't think I broke 90 - and I learned how important it is to keep the ball in play out here - if you get wild off the tee at most public tracks in ABQ, you end up in the desert, but most of the time you still can have a shot at the green. Out here, you're pitching out to the fairway (if you find your ball).

I never played Sandia or Paa Ko (they were built after I moved), but from looking at their online course tours, it looks like the layouts are much more penal than the average NM/West Texas course where you can spray the ball with impunity and shoot 75. PS: Please ask Mike Leach not to run up the score too badly on the Lobos this year - this will not be the team that beat the Red Raiders in 2004.

[enis750]

yep sure do

i played two "desert" dunes style courses a month or so back
i am playing to a 6 hcp right now and i shot a 45/48 and 48/44 there
never played either course
really didnt play that bad, just didnt know where the holes were going, distances to doglegs etc..
was tough and frusterating

if i were to play them again, I would be closer to my hcp i am sure

[SubPar]

The handicap system is flawed because the course rating system does not do a very good job of reflecting relative course difficulty.

Here is a discussion of the issue which is called "portability error" . They tried addressing it with the Course Slope, but they still have not gotten it right. The rating and slope system is supposed to take these factors into account... 1. Topography - Difficulty of stance in the landing area and the vertical angle of shot from the landing area into the green. 2. Fairway - The effective width and depth of the landing area, which can be reduced by a dogleg, trees or fairway slope. 3. Recoverability and rough - The existence of rough and other penalizing factors in the proximity of the landing area and the green. 4. Out-of-bounds - The existence of out-of-bounds in the proximity of the landing area and around the green. 5. Water hazards - The existence of water in the proximity of the landing area and around the green. 6. Trees - The strategic location, size, height and number of trees. 7. Bunkers - The existence of bunkers in the proximity of the landing area and around the green. 8. Green Target - The size, firmness, shape and slope of a green in relation to the normal length of the approach shot. 9. Green Surface - The contour and normal speed of the putting surface. 10. Psychological - The mental effect on play created by the proximity of obstacles to a target area. If they were doing it right I would not be an 8 handicap at an easy, open course like Woodley Lakes (Van Nuys, CA) and then just a 9 handicap at a very hard course like Tierra Rejada (Simi Valley, CA) . SubPar

[iacas]

If they were doing it right I would not be an 8 handicap at an easy, open course like

That's not entirely true. The slope doesn't vary much from the black to the white tees at Lake View (in my sig), but the course rating is so different that I need to shoot under par from the white tees to post the same differential as a round of 73 or 74 from the black tees.

So it's not just a matter of slope, but also the course rating. You can shoot +6 at one course and +10 at another and have the same differential if their slope and course ratings vary enough. All that said, the USGA can't do much about local knowledge.

[SubPar]

That's not entirely true. The slope doesn't vary much from the black to the white tees at Lake View (in my sig), but the course rating is so different that I need to shoot under par from the white tees to post the same differential as a round of 73 or 74 from the black tees.

But the slope rating is supposed to be the equalizer, so when you

calculate your course handicap only the slope and your index are used. However it is that courses get their difficulty rated, it does not seem to be entirely equitable. Woodley Lakes, for example, is a 119 slope and Tierra Rejada a 129. I can shoot to my handicap of -8 at Woodley about 25% of the time, which is expected. Every aspect of Tierra Rejada is much more difficult and I am a -9 there. I doubt I could shoot 81 or better there one out of fifteen tries, but the slope is supposed to equalize them relative to net scores. The guy who won our Club Championship this year posts most of his scores at a course rated at 130, where he is a 10 handicap. When he played on our 117 slope courses he shot a net 205 (-11 for 3 rounds). He's not a sand bagger. People who know him know he posts his correct scores. I play most of my golf on our home courses, so the reverse is true for me when I go to a 129 to 135 slope course. SubPar

[RandomRaiderTTU]

if i were to play them again, I would be closer to my hcp i am sure

Yeah, I agree. I told my father, whom I played with at both courses, that I could shoot a lot better if I played it again.

I think most of it was settling down. I showed myself on the back nines at both that I could card a decent nine hole score. To be honest, I wasn't hitting it exceptionally well either, so I know it can be better. Just hated seeing 50+ front nines at either place.

[iacas]

But the slope rating is supposed to be the equalizer, so when you

That misses the point that "shooting your handicap" involves not just shooting your course handicap above par. I can shoot 72 at some courses and it's still "worse" than my handicap. At other courses, 72 is "better" than my handicap, despite the fact that I'm a handicap of "1" at either.

"Shooting your handicap" is your course handicap plus the course rating. Handicaps determined just by slope are great for comparing your scores against someone else's. But you're speaking of a situation in which you're comparing it to nothing - just your own handicap index - in which case you have to look at the differential, not just how many above or below par you shot. Differentials involve the course rating and slope.

[SubPar]

"Shooting your handicap" is your course handicap plus the course rating.

Actually, what I talking about is comparing my ability as expressed by my index, relative to two different courses with different levels of difficulty. The handicap system is supposed to account for that difference and provide me with roughly the same probability of shooting a net par score on either course.

When we play in tournaments where I am an 8 handicap on the course, if I shoot an 80 that is a net 72. The formula is set up so you are expected to shoot at or below your handicap (net par) roughly 25% of the time. This is what happens at my home courses about 25% of the time. So if I have a really good round I might shoot a net 69, 70, 71, 72, something like that. If the slope/index system were accurate it would achieve what it was meant to achieve, which is to level the playing field for a variety of skill levels on a variety of courses. That means if I go to a tournament at another course which is more difficult, the slope adjustment against my index should give me roughly the same chance to shoot a net 72 (par). Some of us have noticed it does not work out that way. One look at Tierra Rejada and you can see that a one-stroke difference relative to my home course is not even close. It probably should be more like 3-4 strokes given the differences between the courses. I figure with more "local knowledge" I could probably shoot a net par there 25% of the time if I got 12 or 13 strokes, rather than 9. That is what the handicap system is supposed to achieve. If I played TR 20 times next month, my handicap index would probably go up to a 10 or 11, which would accurately reflect my abilities, relative to par, on that course, or similar courses. But I would then shoot some really low NET scores back in the valley. The index/slope system is supposed to account for that difference in difficulty, but it does not. It can't be perfect, but it seems it could be closer. I am inquiring of the Course Rating Chairman with the PLGA to see what they factor into these ratings. SubPar

[flopdarock]

besides being afraid that playing the same course over and over might get boring... this thread is another reason i like to play a wide variety of courses... from hardpan dirt tracks to well groomed pristine courses... it makes it more challenging when youre not used to it

[iacas]

Actually, what I talking about is comparing my ability as expressed by my index, relative to two different courses with different levels of difficulty. The handicap system is supposed to account for that difference and provide me with roughly the same probability of shooting a net par score on either course.

Wrong. The handicap system should provide you:

a) a good chance of competing against someone else b) a good chance of shooting near your differential, which is really quite dependent on the course rating You've made up the "net par" stuff. That's not the purpose of your handicap index (or your course handicap). Again, I have to shoot 70 on some courses to get the same differential as shooting 74 on another course, sometimes with the slopes backwards from what you'd think. I've played a course where the par is 71, the course rating is 74.7, and the slope is 141. If I'm a 1.8, "playing to my [course] handicap" of 2 would give me a score of 77, which ends up with a differential of 1.8. I don't have to shoot 73 to "play to my handicap." "Net par" has nothing to do with it.

When we play in tournaments where I am an 8 handicap on the course, if I shoot an 80 that is a net 72.

No argument there. But "net par" isn't what your handicap index is about.

The formula is set up so you are expected to shoot at or below your handicap (net par) roughly 25% of the time.

Wrong.

That means if I go to a tournament at another course which is more difficult, the slope adjustment against my index should give me roughly the same chance to shoot a net 72 (par).

Wrong again.

Some of us have noticed it does not work out that way.

Because that's now how it's supposed to work.

But enough of me just saying it: http://www.usga.org/handicapping/art...-My-Handicap-/ Here's a relevant portion:

Source: "Did I Play to My Handicap?" by the USGA The system is built around the concept of Course Rating, which impacts us all even though its definition ties to a "scratch" golfer. When you are given handicap strokes, you receive the number of strokes necessary to play to the level of a scratch golfer. If the scratch golfer is supposed to shoot the Course Rating, then those handicap strokes relate to the Course rating as well. We use the phrase "target score" regarding playing to your Handicap. How is a target score determined? First, go through the normal process of converting a Handicap Index to a Course Handicap. Then add that Course Handicap to the Course Rating. For example, a player with a USGA Handicap Index of 16.3 decides to play a course with a USGA Course Rating of 68.9 and a Slope Rating of 129. That player converts the 16.3 to a Course Handicap of 19 (using Course Handicap Tables or "Conversion Charts"), then adds 19 to 68.9, for a total of 88 (rounded). If the player shoots 88, that player has played to his or her Handicap. So playing to your handicap is not exclusively a matter of whether you have hit the ball well or the number of putts you had, but a measurable number. It is NOT how your net score relates to par.

[wrx_junki]

I rarely play anything besides the one near my house which is 5,500 yards in length. My course handicap for that course is 7 but my overall handicap is 15. So I definitely do not do well on other courses besides mine.