Jump to content
IGNORED

AimPoint Charts Illegal? Sorry, Geoff Mangum, they are legal.


iacas
Note:Β This thread is 3988 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.Β Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

Short version: AimPoint charts are legal for all forms of play as determined by the USGA and R&A.; The really long version follows...

Geoff Mangum is a smart cookie. He's done more research on putting than a lot of people have ever done, and he understands more about putting than a lot of people. Geoff is a former lawyer who left the practice of law to become an expert on putting, and by all accounts has done so.

But Geoff is also somewhat abrasive. That doesn't bother me one bit - I'm an abrasive guy sometimes as well, and I will stick to and defend my opinions unless someone else can change them (at which time I'll stick to and defend the new opinion).

Geoff has a nasty habit of popping up anywhere people are discussing AimPoint, a competing "product" to his method of reading greens, and posting a lot of bad, misleading, or just plain wrong information. It would be one thing if this information was not "against" a competitor in the putting (specifically green reading) space, but it is, and that's a sad way to "compete" in my opinion. This tactic amounts to little more than spreading FUD - it is quite literally spreading lies.

AimPoint charts are perfectly legal for play. You can print a book or take a copy of an instruction manual - hell, you can fill an entire Kindle with instruction manuals and, so long as you don't buy a book mid-round or unduly delay play, you can consult the books all day long.

Geoff may not know this, but throughout the middle to end of last year I was seriously considering becoming a PuttingZone certified instructor. I bought his DVDs and book (and paid for them, though you can easily get them free - legally), and I was reading up on what he had to say.

I stumbled across some posts of Geoff's posts in which he makes some of these allegations:

http://puttingzone.blogspot.com/2010/04/aimpoint-charts-use-illegal.html

http://puttingzone.blogspot.com/2010/04/rule-on-artificial-devices.html

In the comments section on one of those posts, he removed at least one comment apiece from both he and I after he called me a "cheater" for explaining why I didn't feel the Rules of Golf made AimPoint charts (AimCharts) illegal. It was over the course of that few days, and due solely to Geoff's wild over-reaction and mistreatment of both me and fellow competitors in his space, that I decided not to seek PuttingZone certification.

Over the past few days Geoff has started this whole thing up again on a private Facebook group for instructors.

It turns out that I did make an error or two when responding to Geoff in the comments of the URLs above. I didn't get the rules wrong - AimPoint charts are perfectly legal for ALL play, including the U.S. Open and the British Open... what I got wrong was that the AimPoint charts ("booklets") are "artificial devices."

John Graham - who has had several run-ins with Geoff as well and is a member of the Facebook group - wrote most of what I'm going to paste below to set the record straight. I made several posts again refuting Geoff with facts , but the post below (again, mostly John's), I consider the definitive post on this topic and it addresses all of the items Geoff Mangum attempts to bring up.

So here it is: a rebuttal in full to Geoff Mangum's assertions that AimPoint charts are illegal and violate the Rules of Golf. Most of the text is John's, but I've made some edits to my copy.


Here you go again. Do I really have to continually beat back this "AimPointΒ charts are illegal" argument that's completely inaccurate? This will beΒ the end of this discussion as I, once again, tackle all of your pointsΒ head on.
If I understand your points correctly, they are:
1) The charts constitute "advice" under Rule 8.
2) Dick Rugge of the USGA overstepped his bounds in declaring the AimPoint charts legal.
3) The charts are artificial devices and the rules are clear about these items.
4) The exception that allows for certain artificial devices shouldn't be applied in this case.
Let's start from the beginning with Rule #8: Advice and Indicating Line of Play.
Your example of the Decision for Rule 8-1/2 is odd. The example talksΒ about penalizing a player for using an artificial device to obtain yardageΒ information during a stipulated round when the Local Rule allowing such aΒ device hasn't been enacted.
The rule goes on to say that any other player who uses such informationΒ produced by an artificial device during the round would also be DQ'd. This doesn't relate to an AimChart, and yet you say "clearly this information [an AimPoint chart] is consideredΒ "advice". It's quite a stretch to equate information produced on a piece of paper inΒ advance as the same as giving or taking advice during a stipulated round, particularly when you consider Decision 14-3/16, which specifically permits using (electronic) devices to "access information on advice-related matters that was produced prior to the start of the player's round (e.g. an electronic yardage book, swing tips)" and "using the device to access ... playing information from previous rounds...".
But that's getting ahead of ourselves a bit. Rule 8 simply doesn't apply. Numbers on a piece of paper (produced prior to the round) does not constitute "advice" and the rules and decisions clearly state that advice can come from a person , not from a piece of paper. To wit, a player's instructor can write down a page of swing tips and thoughts for a player so long as they do so prior to the round and the player has it with him. The coach cannot hand him a note on the fifth tee. It's a piece of paper, but the actual advice comes from a human and during a stipulated round , not before it.
Related to this is a joint statement from the USGA and R&A; . It saysΒ absolutely nothing about information gathered before a round.Β It is talking about, as is mentioned in the title, "R&A-USGA; JointΒ Statement On Electronic Devices, Including Distance-Measuring Devices".
This joint statement discusses these organization's views on electronic devices only and talks nothingΒ about yardage books or artificial devices covered under Rule 14-3,Β Exception 2. The entire paragraph you reference applies only to otherΒ features of electronic distance measuring devices. To quote, "The use of aΒ distance-measuring device would constitute a breach of the Rules if:" andΒ then it lists a bunch of features that would be in breach of 14-3. ItΒ makes no reference to any other artificial devices and states specificallyΒ they are referencing Electronic Distance Measuring Devices or ElectronicΒ Multi-Functional Devices .
The last time I checked, paper wasn't " electronic. " AndΒ I think the conclusion sums it all up nicely:
"The USGA and The R&A; have no intention to permit the use of electronicΒ devices to go beyond the current rules and interpretations. This meansΒ that distance-measuring devices and applications will be limited toΒ distance information only. If a device that is being used forΒ distance-measuring purposes has any additional features, all such
features must conform to the Rules of Golf."
All manufacturers of distance-measuring products are encouraged to submitΒ their devices or applications to the appropriate governing body for aΒ ruling."
Again, AimPoint charts are not electronic distance measuring or multi functionalΒ devices. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
Let's move on to point number two. "Rule 14-3. Artificial Devices, UnusualΒ Equipment and Unusual Use of Equipment"
The USGA goes on to say:
"The United States Golf Association (USGA) reserves the right, at anyΒ time, to change the Rules relating to artificial devices, unusualΒ equipment and the unusual use of equipment, and make or change theΒ interpretations relating to these Rules."
"A player in doubt as to whether use of an item would constitute a breachΒ of Rule 14-3 should consult the USGA."
"A manufacturer should submit to the USGA a sample of an item to beΒ manufactured for a ruling as to whether its use during a stipulated roundΒ would cause a player to be in breach of Rule 14-3. The sample becomes theΒ property of the USGA for reference purposes. If a manufacturer fails toΒ submit a sample or, having submitted a sample, fails to await a rulingΒ before manufacturing and/or marketing the item, the manufacturer assumesΒ the risk of a ruling that use of the item would be contrary to the Rules."
Clearly, it states that anyone wishing to see IF their artificial device,Β unusual equipment or their use of equipment would constitute a breach ofΒ Rule 14-3, that they should submit it for approval. It does not sayΒ anything about submission being only for equipment. This statement that you made, Geoff:Β "The equipment pre-approval provision is not focused on 'artificialΒ devices' but is just equipment and manufactured products in general" isΒ completely false as described above. In fact, it goes out of its way toΒ include all items as labeled in the title of what Rule 14-3 is. In this
case, Mark Sweeney submitted the AimPoint charts for approval under this ruleΒ and the USGA ruled that the chart - the "device" - was legal for play.
Here's the reply from Dick Rugge at the USGA and I quote "Please beΒ advised that the chart, as submitted, has been evaluated and it has beenΒ determined that it conforms to the Rules of Golf."
So, is Dick Rugge "the equipment guy" the appropriate person to make thisΒ ruling? At the time, Dick Rugge was the Senior Technical Director put inΒ charge of making rulings about artificial devices, unusual equipment andΒ the use of equipment. Rule 14-3 specifically covers rulings on artificialΒ devices and equipment. Clearly, "the equipment guy" was the right guy whenΒ deciding on rules about artificial devices and equipment. That takes careΒ of points one and two.
On to points three and four. I agree with you that AimPoint charts are "artificial devices." So what do the rules specifically say about artificial devices?
Here is the rule, quoted exactly from the Rules of Golf: "Except as provided in the Rules, during aΒ stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusualΒ equipment, or use any equipment in an unusual manner:"
"a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or
b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that
might affect his play; or
c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:"
"(i) plain gloves may be worn;
(ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and
(iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip."
Right off the bat, the letter from Rugge covers the AimPoint charts under the "providedΒ by the Rules" section, but let's dig aΒ little deeper because I'd like to end the debate once and for all.
Clearly, the rules state that an artificial device must not be used during a stipulated round that might assist him in making a stroke or in his play, as you state the AimPoint charts do. As Erik pointed out, the definition of "stroke" is clearly defined, and even if we adopt the strictest definition for "in his play", it's irrelevant as I'll get to shortly.
As Erik also mentioned earlier, part b involves measuring during a stipulated round. Looking at a piece of paper during a stipulated round is not measuring anything. That argument ends there.
So, how can it be that Dick Rugge can make such a radical decision on theΒ legality of AimCharts that is so obviously in direct contradiction to RuleΒ 14-3 - assuming we interpret "in his play" as broadly as possible?
The answer lies in the Exceptions and the Decisions. Here are the exceptions:
Exceptions to Rule 14-3:
"1. A player is not in breach of this Rule if (a) the equipment or deviceΒ is designed for or has the effect of alleviating a medical condition, (b)Β the player has a legitimate medical reason to use the equipment or device,Β and (c) the Committee is satisfied that its use does not give the playerΒ any undue advantage over other players."
"2. A player is not in breach of this Rule if he uses equipment in aΒ traditionally accepted manner."
The answer lies in exception 2. Pay particular attention to the words used:Β "uses... in a traditionally accepted manner." It says nothing about the artificialΒ device itself being traditionally accepted.Β It specifically says that equipmentΒ is used in a traditionally accepted manner .
Let's backtrack briefly to see if an artificial device is even equipment.
Equipment is defined as: "'Equipment' is anything used, worn or carried by theΒ player or anything carried for the player by his partner or either ofΒ their caddies, except any ball he has played at the hole being played andΒ any small object, such as a coin or a tee, when used to mark the positionΒ of a ball or the extent of an area in which a ball is to be dropped.Β Equipment includes a golf cart, whether or not motorized."
I think this isΒ clear that an AimChart is both an artificial device and equipment.
How does Exception 2 apply to the AimCharts? Let's see how the USGA hasΒ applied Exception 2 to give us a little precedent on our currentΒ situation.
Decision 14-3/5 talks about a booklet with yardage in it and whether orΒ not that artificial device is in breach of 14-3.
"Q. A booklet contains illustrations of the holes on a course, includingΒ isolated trees, bunkers, etc. Superimposed on each illustration is aΒ yardage scale in increments of ten yards. Thus, a player using such aΒ booklet can estimate how far his ball lies from a putting green or a tee.Β Is use of such a booklet during a round contrary to Rule 14-3?"
"A. No. Although such a booklet is an artificial device, its use has beenΒ traditionally accepted and Exception 2 to Rule 14-3 applies."
Nowhere in that decision do the Rules say a yardage book must contain *only* yardages, and in fact, the example given indicates that the booklet "contains illustrations of the holes on a course, including isolated trees, bunkers, etc." The biggie there is the "etc." at the end, as it includes any other notations the player wishes to make.
Since the answer was "No," that means, as exception 2 states above, that it has been used in a traditionally accepted manner.
Let's look at Decision 14-3/5.5
In this decision, it is asked "With regard to Decision 14-3/5, may a player use an electronic device containing the same information?"
The answer: "Yes. Exception 2 to Rule 14-3 applies, but the player must not use a device with a measuring or distance calculating function.Β However, see also the Note to Rule 14-3."
With this, the USGA has defined "used in a traditionally accepted manner."
It has nothing to do with technology, how old it is, or itsΒ contents. Your argument that there is no way AimCharts can beΒ traditionally accepted because they are only a few years old or not usedΒ widely is a misapplication of the rule as it is stated. Rule 14-3,Β Exception 2 specially refers to the "use in a traditionally accepted manner."
Use in a traditionally accepted manner is the act of using equipment in a mannerΒ that is traditionally accepted. In this case, reading prepared information written down or electronically in advance is the traditionally accepted manner . The joint statement mentioned earlier confirms this belief of bothΒ the USGA and R&A.; The statement does mention, however, that someΒ electronic distance measuring or electronic multi-functional devices mayΒ be reinvestigated depending on their particular functions. It does not sayΒ anything about yardage books or other artificial devices that simplyΒ present preformed information in a written form.
This is why yardage books or other artificial devices that containsΒ prepared in advance information about a golf course is accepted under RuleΒ 14-3, exception 2 and it is the reason why reading the rule book on theΒ course is also allowed. Without reading being a traditionally acceptedΒ manner, each golfer would be forced to memorize the entire rule book,Β which is clearly also an artificial device that might assist a player inΒ his stroke or with his play.
As long as players use AimCharts in theirΒ traditionally accepted manner they fall under Rule 14-3 Exception 2 andΒ this is what makes Dick Rugge's ruling legitimate and accurate. His rulingΒ is based on the fact that these charts fall under Exception 2 of Rule 14-3Β and that AimPoint charts will be used in a traditionally accepted manner. That manner is reading them.
I hope this ends your continued belief that the people in charge of theΒ rules have mistakenly applied them in this case. I have clearly shownΒ where your four arguments were wrong, false, or misapplied. If you're goingΒ to try and use the Rules to sway public opinion for your stance, it wouldΒ be in everyone's best interest that they get to see how the actual rulesΒ read and how they are applied by the people that are in charge ofΒ protecting this great game.

Erik J. Barzeski β€” β›³Β I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. πŸŒπŸΌβ€β™‚οΈ
Director of InstructionΒ Golf EvolutionΒ β€’Β Owner,Β The Sand Trap .comΒ β€’Β Author,Β Lowest Score Wins
Golf DigestΒ "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17Β &Β "Best in State" 2017-20Β β€’ WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019Β :edel:Β :true_linkswear:

Check Out:Β New TopicsΒ |Β TST BlogΒ |Β Golf TermsΒ |Β Instructional ContentΒ |Β AnalyzrΒ |Β LSWΒ | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Yes I have thought it was stupid there is so much debate over this. Aim point charts are quite clearly the exact same kind of thing as a yardage book.

:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Wow - that's quite a position he's taking (in some ways I'm sorry I read his site and all those replies).Β  Sounds like he starts by saying they're clearing illegal and then when he get's called on it reverts to "it's not in the spirit of the game" or "it's removing all the skill from the game".Β  Of course if you follow his logic, it leads to some interesting ideas...

Using his logic, a table of distances for how far I hit each club would be illegal as it's giving me advice on what club to use.Β  That clearly means that me knowing how far I hit each club is also illegal.Β  So I propose that from now on, each player has to roll a dice to see which club they can hit for each shot.Β  That way I can't unfairly use my knowledge of club yardages and real skill is required to hit a random club some specific distance.

Big clubs: :titleist:Β 915D3 @ 9.5Β°, :callaway:Β X-Hot Pro 3W
Med clubs: :callaway: X-Hot Pro 5W, :titleist: 910H 4H,
Small clubs: :callaway: X-Hot Pro 5-AW, :titleist: Vokey 55.10, 60.10

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My favorite part is where Geoff Mangum seems to think that the very idea of allowing a yardage book is a rules compromise. He also says that shafts cannot be marked with advice on how to play a stroke. Without digging through his blog, does he have anything to say about Dave Pelz's suggestion of marking wedge shafts with quarter and half shot distances?

-- Michael | My swing!Β 

"You think you're Jim Furyk. That's why your phone is never charged." - message from my mother

Driver:Β  Titleist 915D2.Β  4-wood:Β  Titleist 917F2.Β  Titleist TS2 19 degree hybrid.Β  Another hybrid in here too.Β  Irons 5-U, Ping G400.Β  Wedges negotiable (currently 54 degree Cleveland, 58 degree Titleist) Edel putter.Β 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Bummer. I've always enjoyed Geoff's unique perspective on putting and have learned a lot from his material. But he's being an arse in this case.

Stretch.

"In the process of trial and error, our failed attempts are meant to destroy arrogance and provoke humility." -- Master Jin Kwon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Geoff's methodology was my first choice for putting before I attended an AimPoint clinic. He’s an intelligent and knowledgable guy but alas I think he’s β€˜stuck in his ways’ to coin a phrase. He’s like golfers I’ve seen who hate mallet putters because they're not 'classic' or large head drivers because the sweet spot is larger or stack and tilt or lack of sway in the golf swing or rangefinders etc

AimPoint is science. It works. It’s legal.

SWING DNA
Speed [77]Β TempoΒ [5]Β ToeDown [5]Β KickAngle [6] Release [5] Mizuno JPX EZ 10.5Β° - Fujikura Orochi Black Eye (with Harrison ShotMaker) Mizuno JPX EZ 3W/3H - Fujikura Orochi Black Eye Mizuno JPX 850 Forged 4i-PW - True Temper XP 115 S300 Mizuno MP R-12 50.06/54.09/58.10 - Dynamic Gold Wedge Flex Mizuno MP A305Β [:-P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Originally Posted by TD22057

So I propose that from now on, each player has to roll a dice to see which club they can hit for each shot.


Unfortunately the dice would be giving you advice in that case. Β Sorry, but you either have to close your eyes and pick a club or knock your bag over and allow fate to determine which club falls furthest out of your bag, determining which one you will use.

Brandon

Brandon a.k.a. Tony Stark

-------------------------

The Fastest Flip in the West

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Originally Posted by Stretch

Bummer. I've always enjoyed Geoff's unique perspective on putting and have learned a lot from his material. But he's being an arse in this case.


I'd be inclined to agree.

As I said above, green reading is one of three commonalities, and I think it's harming him more than anything because he could have students learn AimPoint and still teach them to control their starting line and their pace (distance, speed, etc.).

Erik J. Barzeski β€” β›³Β I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. πŸŒπŸΌβ€β™‚οΈ
Director of InstructionΒ Golf EvolutionΒ β€’Β Owner,Β The Sand Trap .comΒ β€’Β Author,Β Lowest Score Wins
Golf DigestΒ "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17Β &Β "Best in State" 2017-20Β β€’ WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019Β :edel:Β :true_linkswear:

Check Out:Β New TopicsΒ |Β TST BlogΒ |Β Golf TermsΒ |Β Instructional ContentΒ |Β AnalyzrΒ |Β LSWΒ | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 1 month later...
Does that mean before the round I can just tape some paper on my shaft telling me the distance I hit with this club? And it won't count as advice because I did it before the round?

Frankie

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yes. (I'd say that in equity you could probably do it afterwards too, as long as it was either you or your caddy who supplied the information that you wrote down.)

In the bag:
FT-iQ 10Β° driver, FT 21Β° neutral 3H
T-Zoid Forged 15Β° 3W, MX-23 4-PW
Harmonized 52Β° GW, Tom Watson 56Β° SW, X-Forged Vintage 60Β° LW
White Hot XG #1 Putter, 33"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator

Originally Posted by zeg

Yes. (I'd say that in equity you could probably do it afterwards too, as long as it was either you or your caddy who supplied the information that you wrote down.)


Yep.

Erik J. Barzeski β€” β›³Β I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. πŸŒπŸΌβ€β™‚οΈ
Director of InstructionΒ Golf EvolutionΒ β€’Β Owner,Β The Sand Trap .comΒ β€’Β Author,Β Lowest Score Wins
Golf DigestΒ "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17Β &Β "Best in State" 2017-20Β β€’ WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019Β :edel:Β :true_linkswear:

Check Out:Β New TopicsΒ |Β TST BlogΒ |Β Golf TermsΒ |Β Instructional ContentΒ |Β AnalyzrΒ |Β LSWΒ | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 1 year later...
  • Administrator

Despite all of the stuff he's said in the past, Geoff Mangum is now pitching his OWN set of "charts":

Quote:
I'm creating a "Putt Break Reading" wheel that computes the combination of Stimp speed times Slope grade percent to use Stimp-Slope as the basic unit for the physics of break over flat, tilted green surface for putts out to 24 feet. If you would like to help "road test" this system in BETA and can provide 2-3 sentences of evaluation in the next week or so (by about Jan. 21, 2013), email me and I will email you the table of break calculations and the images of the wheel. Thanks!

Have a look at this sample chart he posted:

Point being: charts work, do yourself a favor and get the real thing. Get AimPoint.

Erik J. Barzeski β€” β›³Β I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. πŸŒπŸΌβ€β™‚οΈ
Director of InstructionΒ Golf EvolutionΒ β€’Β Owner,Β The Sand Trap .comΒ β€’Β Author,Β Lowest Score Wins
Golf DigestΒ "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17Β &Β "Best in State" 2017-20Β β€’ WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019Β :edel:Β :true_linkswear:

Check Out:Β New TopicsΒ |Β TST BlogΒ |Β Golf TermsΒ |Β Instructional ContentΒ |Β AnalyzrΒ |Β LSWΒ | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

It is a bit dizzying.

Scott

Titleist, Edel,Β Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

My brain hurts.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3Β |Β 15ΒΊ 3-Wood: Ping G410 |Β 17ΒΊ 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 |Β 19ΒΊ 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo |Β 54ΒΊ SW, 60ΒΊ LW: Titleist Vokey SM8Β |Β Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

What the actual ****? Good luck reading that in 10 seconds.

Stretch.

"In the process of trial and error, our failed attempts are meant to destroy arrogance and provoke humility." -- Master Jin Kwon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 2 months later...

The breaking wheel , also known as the Catherine wheel or simply the wheel , was a torture device used for capital punishment in the Middle Ages and early modern times for public execution by bludgeoning to death. It was used during the Middle Ages and was still in use into the 19th century.

This is a Geoff Joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note:Β This thread is 3988 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.Β 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

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    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.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • This is a loooooong winded narrative so if you don't like long stories, move on.Β πŸ˜‰ Our senior club typically gets about 25 new members each year. We lose about 25 members each year for various reasons (moved to FL/AZ, disabled, dead, too expensive). Of the new members, usually 20 have an active GHIN handicap. About 5 each year do not have a GHIN handicap. When they join our club, we give each member a state association membership that includes GHIN handicapping services. We play a series of handicapped tournaments over the summer. When we sign up a new member who does not have a GHIN handicap, we attempt to give them an estimated index until they have sufficient scores posted to have an actual GHIN index.Β  Our first event typically is around May 15 so, in theory, a new member has about 6 weeks to post a few scores. Posting season in the Mitten starts April 1. Inevitably, several of the unhandicapped individuals seemΒ  to either not play until the first tournament or can't figure out how to enter scores (hey, they are seniors). That situation then leads to my contacting the new member and asking a series of questions: a. Did you ever have a GHIN handicap? If yes, which State and do you recall what it was? b. Do you have an alternate handicap through a non-GHIN handicap service or a league? c. What do you think your average score was last year (for 9 or 18) d. What was your best score last year? Where did you play and which tee was used? e. What do you consider a very good score for yourself? Based on their responses I attempt to give them an index that makes them competitive in the first couple events BUT does not allow them to win their flight in the first couple events. We don't want the new members to finish last and at the same time, we don't want someone with a "20" playing handicap to win the third flight with a net 57. In the event some new member did shoot a net 57, we also advise everyone that we can and will adjust handicaps retroactively when it is clear to us that a member's handicap does not accurately reflect their potential. We don't like to adjust things retroactively and in the 8 years I have chaired the Handicap Committee, we have only done it once. So here are the questions to the mob: Any ideas how to do this better? Any questions one might ask an unhandicapped individual to better estimate their index/handicap? Would it be reasonable to have a new player play once (or more?) without being eligible to place in the money?
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Awesome! I got that a while back with my start word! Wordle 1,013 4/6 ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨 ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6* ⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨 🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜ 🟨🟨🟨⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,013 3/6 🟩⬜🟨⬜🟨 🟩🟨⬜🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Γ—
Γ—
  • 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...