How difficult are PGA Tour course setups?

[Nosevi]

Another thing that seems completely misunderstood in this thread is whether the difficulty of "rough" can be judged by looking at a picture.

With 4 inch Bermuda it's almost impossible to find a golf ball unless you happen to step on it and if you are lucky enough to find it getting the club on the ball is about like trying to tear through shag carpeting. Looks can be very deceiving in different types and thicknesses of grass.

I've played out of Bermuda, unless you've played out of heather and bracken, you're just going to have to take my word for it. :)

Seriously, in the stuff I've shown you aren't shooting at the green no matter who you are - you're hacking out sideways onto the fairway.

This was never meant to be an "Us against them" thread. I used a local course to me is all.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="David in FL" url="/t/72566/how-difficult-are-pga-tour-course-setups/72#post_952487"] I'm curious, and I don't want to stray OT, but yOu keep insinuating, among other things, that a "scratch" golfer over there is somehow a better player than here. I suspect that you have a poor understanding of the relatively minor differences in our handicapping systems, but I'd be interested to hear why you think that is.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE name="hopefulhacker" url="/t/72566/how-difficult-are-pga-tour-course-setups/72#post_952499"] Anyone else singing "there may be trouble ahead" to themselves :) .......... but ye guys have every right to be P*ssed off with our attitude.  [/QUOTE] Hopeful, it's not an attitude it's just a different way of calling a golfer something. I don't think our golfers are better, and I certainly don't think our system of handicapping is better, wish we'd change to the US system if I'm honest. There's a measurable difference in the two systems and that means that if you take a given golfer of x handicap under the USGA system and work out their handicap under CONGU, the guy will have a higher CONGU handicap that is just a simple fact. The difference is about 3 shots for a higher handicapper and about 2 or so for a CAT 1 golfer (although that may increase as CAT 1 golfers can no longer submit any rounds outside a competition). That means that when you get a golfer of say a 13 handicap under CONGU, that guy would hold about a 10 handicap under USGA. A Scratch golfer under COGU would be about a +2 player under USGA David, I have a perfectly good understanding of both systems, it's not better or worse, it's just different. Obviously, statistically, taking the numbers above there are 10 times more 'scratch players' per handicapped player in the US than in say Scotland, under CONGU. This is unlikely. It's really that what you term a 'scratch' player is not what we term a scratch player - under CONGU they'd come out at about a 2 handicapper - and there are 10 times more of those than what we term a 'scratch player'. Several countries like Australia and New Zealand have changed form a CONGU based system to a USGA based system in the last few years and all have found the same - handicaps dropped. Here's a chap with far too much time on his hands - [URL=http://tryingtobeascratchgolfer.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/my-us-handicap.html]http://tryingtobeascratchgolfer.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/my-us-handicap.html[/URL] - He's been tracking his handicap under both systems for years. Lowest he's been under USGA 0.9, he was a 2.5 under CONGU. My lowest scores at one of my home tracks have been -4, -2, -1 (x3 times)......... none of which counted towards lowering my handicap as CONGU will no longer allow CAT 1 golfers to submit supplementary scores outside an official competition. Social rounds don't count only competition rounds shot against Competition Scratch Score....... and they all count. Who's system is better? Yours in the US, hands down, especially if you are improving as ours takes an eternity to get your handicap down. Hypothetical example for you. I was a 5.4 handicap but could shoot a scratch round (I was, I did, several times) let's say that is my current 'potential'. The first time I do it my handicap would drop by 0.5 so I'd be a 4.9 handicap. But the thing is, under our system the closer you get to scratch the smaller the drop - when you are a 1.4 handicap or below and you shoot a scratch round it only goes down by 0.1. In fact if you're a 5.4 handicap and you start shooting scratch rounds, you have to shoot scratch 26 times in order to reduce your handicap to 0.0. All of these times have to be in an official competition. And every time you shoot 2 over your current handicap or more your handicap goes back up by 0.1 and you need another scratch round to cancel that out. In reality if you shoot down to scratch 10 times with a few rounds between that are just above your handicap you will not be close to scratch here, you would be there - that's not a comment on the systems or an attitude it's just simple maths. If you shoot scratch, scratch, 2 over you handicap, scratch, scratch, 2 over handicap (which is perhaps more realistic if your 'potential' is scratch), in order to get from a 1 handicapper to a 0.0 you'd have to shoot scratch 26 times in a competition. Like I say, the US system is better, it's more accurate and properly reflects a golfers potential at any given time. But there is a measurable difference in the 2 systems and when a guy gets to scratch under the USGA system he would not be scratch under CONGU. If anyone is unconvinced - give me your handicap 20 rounds ago, your last 20 scores and your course rating and I'll tell you what your handicap would have been under CONGU. I absolutely guarantee it'll be higher than it is under USGA.

There are other factors that could also affect the percentage of good golfers. The US has a large region (the southern states) that plays all year around. So, I would expect that there would be a higher percentage of better players here. Especially in Florida. We can compare the number of scratch golfers in the northern states versus our southern ones, and there will also be a larger percentage of scratch golfers in the south.

[Nosevi]

Quote:

There are other factors that could also affect the percentage of good golfers.

The US has a large region (the southern states) that plays all year around. So, I would expect that there would be a higher percentage of better players here. Especially in Florida.

We can compare the number of scratch golfers in the northern states versus our southern ones, and there will also be a larger percentage of scratch golfers in the south.

Look, got time on my hands I'll demo it. Give me a course in Florida, any half way decent track.......

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Quote:

There are other factors that could also affect the percentage of good golfers.

The US has a large region (the southern states) that plays all year around. So, I would expect that there would be a higher percentage of better players here. Especially in Florida.

We can compare the number of scratch golfers in the northern states versus our southern ones, and there will also be a larger percentage of scratch golfers in the south.

Look, got time on my hands I'll demo it. Give me a course in Florida, any half way decent track.......

Found a suitable course - standby.......

[Golfingdad]

I'm still trying to figure out the point of this thread.  I thought we were talking about PGA tour course setups?

Now it seems more like a pissing contest about who has harder rough or who's scratch golfers are better.

@Nosevi what exactly is the point of this thread?

[Nosevi]

Ok, really quickly, if guys want a full explanation it's probably for a different thread.

Take a simple course to work out (coz my maths is rubbish) Whistler Golf club Par 72, rating 72.0 slope 136 http://www.whistlerplatinum.com/summer-activities/golf/whistler-golf-course.php#ad-image-6

Take our imaginary golfer who's a handicap 2.0 and lets say on a good day he shoots 72, bad day (wind's up, it's raining, lost ball, ha wasn't in the 'zone' .... he shoots 76, he's actually fairly consistant (wish I was)

Lets say he shoots - 75,72,75,72,72,76,75,72,73,72,73,75,72,72,76,73,73,76,72,75,

Under a USGA handicap his handicap at the end of these 20 rounds is 0.1 - he has a playing handicap of scratch.

Looking under CONGU then, same course, same scores, his handicap, round by round would go:

2.0,1.9,1.9,1.8,1.7,1.8,1.8,1.7,1.6,1.5,1.4,1.5,1.4,1.3,1.4,1.4,1.4,1.5,1.4,1.5    He finishes the 20 rounds with a playing handicap of 2. And in fact if he doesn't start scoring well below scratch he will never get lower than that or to what we term a scratch golfer.

So:

1. Our system is barking mad, yours is much, much more sensible.

2. When a guy hits scratch here he is playing below what a guy over there is playing to when he is a 'scratch golfer'.

[MS256]

I've played out of Bermuda, unless you've played out of heather and bracken, you're just going to have to take my word for it. :)

Seriously, in the stuff I've shown you aren't shooting at the green no matter who you are - you're hacking out sideways onto the fairway.

This was never meant to be an "Us against them" thread. I used a local course to me is all.

I have never played on any two courses where the Bermuda rough was the same. Some have a top so thick that a ball often doesn't even fall to the bottom and is lying suspended 3 or 4 inches off of the ground. On others the ball drops to the ground and the top closes around it, making it invisible. If the ball does go down with the heavy top there is little chance of advancing the ball more than a few yards.

In both cases the grass looks the same in a picture.

We also have some courses that are not heavily wooded that grow different types of grasses outside of the "rough" area.

Other courses have nothing but woods or swamp and no chance to find and play the ball. Others have different types of grasses that are grown as high as the course in your pictures.

[rustyredcab]

How hard? Very hard.

Years ago, I played a course which had just completed an LPGA tournament on Sunday -- we played Monday in a charity event. Knowing I would be playing the course, I watched the LPGA event that weekend. Final group and final hole, Anika was tied for the lead. She hit a great approach shot to about 2.0 feet and the announcers declared her the champion -- she had little more than a tap-in as it looked on TV and the announcer validated. As she walked to the green, a storm rolled in and the rain picked up intensity. She made the putt as the skies opened up in a downpour. It rained hard until about 1 PM the next day. The event started late but went off as planned. Because of the storm, the pins all remained in their Sunday locations and nothing was mowed. Even with 18 hours of rain, the pins were extremely tough and the greens were fast, fast, fast. Pin placements seemed brutal -- the same pins that went without comment the day before during the TV coverage. When my group got to 18, after playing the hole, we each placed our ball where Anika had her gimme. It was a short putt, like we saw on TV, but it also had a little break and was downhill. Four us hit a total of 12 putts before one went in. I could have stayed there all day before holing that putt. Most missed the hole and left a 3-5 foot putt coming back. Try and take the break out and you were left with 10 - 20 feet. This after a night of rain and no mowing. I can not image how tough the greens and pins were for the ladies that weekend and they went without comment from announcers or players. Just another weekend on the LPGA. Everyone knew that Anika would make the putt. She walked up and drained it without fanfare. On TV, none of us knew how hard it really was.

And that was LPGA and the years ago. I cannot image what they do on the PGA today.

[Nosevi]

I'm still trying to figure out the point of this thread.  I thought we were talking about PGA tour course setups?

Now it seems more like a pissing contest about who has harder rough or who's scratch golfers are better.

@Nosevi what exactly is the point of this thread?

The point of the thread was that the PGA setups are not as hard as many make out. A large part of that is that the rough is not penal so the guys just bomb it off the tee. There are courses out there where this isn't an option. People saying that amateurs would struggle is difficult to prove as many play these courses. People pointing to the fact the courses must be hard as the pros are so much better than an amateur are using a circular argument - they're only saying that because they claim the courses are so hard. Then admittedly we went of on one hell of a tangent talking about what a scratch player is over here compared to over there.

Think that summarises it :)

In fairness, I said I was out some time ago but guys kind of asked some questions......

[Nosevi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

I've played out of Bermuda, unless you've played out of heather and bracken, you're just going to have to take my word for it. :)

Seriously, in the stuff I've shown you aren't shooting at the green no matter who you are - you're hacking out sideways onto the fairway.

This was never meant to be an "Us against them" thread. I used a local course to me is all.

I have never played on any two courses where the Bermuda rough was the same. Some have a top so thick that a ball often doesn't even fall to the bottom and is lying suspended 3 or 4 inches off of the ground. On others the ball drops to the ground and the top closes around it, making it invisible. If the ball does go down with the heavy top there is little chance of advancing the ball more than a few yards.

In both cases the grass looks the same in a picture.

We also have some courses that are not heavily wooded that grow different types of grasses outside of the "rough" area.

Other courses have nothing but woods or swamp and no chance to find and play the ball. Others have different types of grasses that are grown as high as the course in your pictures.

Cool. leave it like that and let the Pros play on it :)

THIS IS NOT A BRITISH COURSES ARE HARDER THAN US COURSES THREAD :)

That course looks great. But it never looks like that on the edge of the fairway at a PGA tournament. That is my point. If it did they would not be shooting at the green from 220 yard out of the 'rough'.

[Lihu]

Ok, really quickly, if guys want a full explanation it's probably for a different thread.

Take a simple course to work out (coz my maths is rubbish) Whistler Golf club Par 72, rating 72.0 slope 136 http://www.whistlerplatinum.com/summer-activities/golf/whistler-golf-course.php#ad-image-6

Take our imaginary golfer who's a handicap 2.0 and lets say on a good day he shoots 72, bad day (wind's up, it's raining, lost ball, ha wasn't in the 'zone' .... he shoots 76, he's actually fairly consistant (wish I was)

Lets say he shoots - 75,72,75,72,72,76,75,72,73,72,73,75,72,72,76,73,73,76,72,75,

Under a USGA handicap his handicap at the end of these 20 rounds is 0.1 - he has a playing handicap of scratch.

Looking under CONGU then, same course, same scores, his handicap, round by round would go:

2.0,1.9,1.9,1.8,1.7,1.8,1.8,1.7,1.6,1.5,1.4,1.5,1.4,1.3,1.4,1.4,1.4,1.5,1.4,1.5    He finishes the 20 rounds with a playing handicap of 2. And in fact if he doesn't start scoring well below scratch he will never get lower than that or to what we term a scratch golfer.

So:

1. Our system is barking mad, yours is much, much more sensible.

2. When a guy hits scratch here he is playing below what a guy over there is playing to when he is a 'scratch golfer'.

I think I get it. Is the CONGU system more of a moving average?

Under this type of system, it is definitely advantageous to get good first then get a handicap. That is, to play to a close to scratch (1 hcp), then start competing?

[Lihu]

The reason why I want to get to a solid 12 (or better) is so I can enjoy these types of courses.

[Nosevi]

[QUOTE name="Nosevi" url="/t/72566/how-difficult-are-pga-tour-course-setups/90#post_952544"]   Ok, really quickly, if guys want a full explanation it's probably for a different thread. Take a simple course to work out (coz my maths is rubbish) Whistler Golf club Par 72, rating 72.0 slope 136 [URL=http://www.whistlerplatinum.com/summer-activities/golf/whistler-golf-course.php#ad-image-6]http://www.whistlerplatinum.com/summer-activities/golf/whistler-golf-course.php#ad-image-6[/URL] Take our imaginary golfer who's a handicap 2.0 and lets say on a good day he shoots 72, bad day (wind's up, it's raining, lost ball, ha wasn't in the 'zone' .... he shoots 76, he's actually fairly consistant (wish I was) Lets say he shoots - 75,72,75,72,72,76,75,72,73,72,73,75,72,72,76,73,73,76,72,75, Under a USGA handicap his handicap at the end of these 20 rounds is 0.1 - he has a playing handicap of scratch. Looking under CONGU then, same course, same scores, his handicap, round by round would go: 2.0,1.9,1.9,1.8,1.7,1.8,1.8,1.7,1.6,1.5,1.4,1.5,1.4,1.3,1.4,1.4,1.4,1.5,1.4,1.5    He finishes the 20 rounds with a playing handicap of 2. And in fact if he doesn't start scoring well below scratch he will never get lower than that or to what we term a scratch golfer. So: 1. Our system is barking mad, yours is much, much more sensible. 2. When a guy hits scratch here he is playing below what a guy over there is playing to when he is a 'scratch golfer'. [/QUOTE] I think I get it. Is the CONGU system more of a moving average? Under this type of system, it is definitely advantageous to get good first then get a handicap. That is, to play to a close to scratch (1 hcp), then start competing?

It is. But just to make it more interesting the EGU won't allow an initial handicap of lower than 5.5 and from there on only official competition rounds count. So it takes loads of rounds, all in competition, shot below scratch to get to scratch and every single round that went slightly wrong (one lost ball over a round on handicap) and your handicap goes up by 0.1 . Oh and if you don't submit a card (except due to weather) your handicap goes up by 0.1 . It's a daft system and it's very very difficult to get down to scratch or below.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

I think I get it. Is the CONGU system more of a moving average?

Under this type of system, it is definitely advantageous to get good first then get a handicap. That is, to play to a close to scratch (1 hcp), then start competing?

It is. But just to make it more interesting the EGU won't allow an initial handicap of lower than 5.5 and from there on only official competition rounds count. So it takes loads of rounds, all in competition, shot below scratch to get to scratch and every single round that went slightly wrong (one lost ball over a round on handicap) and your handicap goes up by 0.1 . Oh and if you don't submit a card (except due to weather) your handicap goes up by 0.1 . It's a daft system and it's very very difficult to get down to scratch or below.

Are you saying that even a "scratch" golfer just starting to compete in CONGU tournaments would be given an initial handicap of 5.5 from which he would average this 5.5 with his first score?

[Nosevi]

[QUOTE name="Nosevi" url="/t/72566/how-difficult-are-pga-tour-course-setups/90#post_952557"]   [QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/72566/how-difficult-are-pga-tour-course-setups/90#post_952553"] I think I get it. Is the CONGU system more of a moving average? Under this type of system, it is definitely advantageous to get good first then get a handicap. That is, to play to a close to scratch (1 hcp), then start competing?[/QUOTE] It is. But just to make it more interesting the EGU won't allow an initial handicap of lower than 5.5 and from there on only official competition rounds count. So it takes loads of rounds, all in competition, shot below scratch to get to scratch and every single round that went slightly wrong (one lost ball over a round on handicap) and your handicap goes up by 0.1 . Oh and if you don't submit a card (except due to weather) your handicap goes up by 0.1 . It's a daft system and it's very very difficult to get down to scratch or below.[/QUOTE] Are you saying that even a "scratch" golfer just starting to compete in CONGU tournaments would be given an initial handicap of 5.5 from which he would average this 5.5 with his first score?

It's a tad worse that that. He would start at 5.5. Then when he scored scratch he drops 0.1 for every stroke below his playing handicap (6) he shoots , so down 0.6 to a handicap of 4.9. He shoots scratch again he goes down 0.5 this time to 4.4. Then shoots scratch he only goes down 0.4........ By the time he is 1.4 he only goes down 0.1 every time he shoots scratch, remembering he goes up 0.1 every time he shoots more than a single shot over his handicap. And as a cat 1 golfer (5.4 and lower) only competition rounds count. If I shoot 10 scratch rounds in the next 20 I will not be close to scratch. Edit: I will not be close to what we call "a scratch golfer" - It's a daft system designed to make getting to scratch and below incredibly difficult to do.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

I think I get it. Is the CONGU system more of a moving average?

Under this type of system, it is definitely advantageous to get good first then get a handicap. That is, to play to a close to scratch (1 hcp), then start competing?

It is. But just to make it more interesting the EGU won't allow an initial handicap of lower than 5.5 and from there on only official competition rounds count. So it takes loads of rounds, all in competition, shot below scratch to get to scratch and every single round that went slightly wrong (one lost ball over a round on handicap) and your handicap goes up by 0.1 . Oh and if you don't submit a card (except due to weather) your handicap goes up by 0.1 . It's a daft system and it's very very difficult to get down to scratch or below.

Are you saying that even a "scratch" golfer just starting to compete in CONGU tournaments would be given an initial handicap of 5.5 from which he would average this 5.5 with his first score?

It's a tad worse that that. He would start at 5.5. Then when he scored scratch he drops 0.1 for every stroke below his playing handicap (6) he shoots , so down 0.6 to a handicap of 4.9. He shoots scratch again he goes down 0.5 this time to 4.4. Then shoots scratch he only goes down 0.4........ By the time he is 1.4 he only goes down 0.1 every time he shoots scratch, remembering he goes up 0.1 every time he shoots more than a single shot over his handicap. And as a cat 1 golfer (5.4 and lower) only competition rounds count. If I shoot 10 scratch rounds in the next 20 I will not be close to scratch.

Edit: I will not be close to what we call "a scratch golfer" - It's a daft system designed to make getting to scratch and below incredibly difficult to do.

Ah, I see how this works. It makes sense that a CONGU 2 handicap could be scratch based upon USGA standards.

I would imagine that as your handicaps stabilize over 20 rounds or so, the two systems would be equal.

The main difference being that the CONGU system shows that a new scratch golfer is new at scratch, and the USGA system allows someone to become scratch a bit quicker. On the other hand, the USGA system also allows a golfer to have a worse handicap quicker as well.

Regardless, though, you (being a roughly 3 handicap) would probably not have too much trouble scoring close to your handicap on a tour rated course. The close to scratch golfer in our So. Cal. group scored 2 strokes over par this last weekend on a qualifier course.

[Nosevi]

Unfortunately not. The systems are only equal if you shoot exactly the score every time, the bigger the variation in your scores the further above a USGA handicap a CONGU one is. Take our theoretical golfer at scratch and run those scores again and under the USGA system he stays the same. Under CONGU he goes up 0.1 for every score over 73 and doesn't go down for the 72s (he's already scratch. Over time scoring like this he's back up to 1.5 ish under CONGU but under USGA he remains at scratch.

[hopefulhacker]

Just to note that there are different categories of golfers under Congu, I am a Cat 3 golfer at HC 17, each time* I shoot 1 better than CSS or SSS, I get 0.3 deducted from my HC... so it's easier for me to drop quicker than Nosevi...it gets gradually harder the better I get (or the lower my HC goes) If I shot a Net 70 at in a competition where the CSS Par was 72, then I would lose 2 strokes * 0.3 = 0.6 from my Handicap. If I shot a Net 69 I would get 0.9 deducted etc. Nosevi, do you have ESR in England The GUI (Golfing Union of Ireland) implemented it a few years ago, it's pretty complicated by the high level of it is If a golfer shoots a Net -4 or better more than once in a calendar year then that golfer is subject to a further ESR (Exceptional Scoring Reduction) cut. That cut varies, it's all based on formulas etc but it is an additional cut on top of the normal cuts above. It's another thing that helps a handicap "keep up" with the golfers ability. I don't think the GUEngland has this? It should... it helps to solve the problem a little bit. So I am 17.2 at present, if I shoot a Gross 85 Net 68 (-4) asssuming CSS Par is 72 when our season starts** I will lose 4 shots * 0.3 = 1.2. I am now down to 16 If I following that up and shoot a Gross 84 Net 68 (-4) assuming the CSS is 72, I will drop another 1.2 So I am down to 14.8 BUT with ESR, the will automatically take another deduction as I have just posted 2 "Exceptional" rounds as they classify them. (Two ND's -4) I'm not sure of the exact deduction, but it would be around another 1.0 So I would be down to 13.8 Now,in the example I had just shot an 84, 12 over, I am still playing off 14, even after the ESR, so the system still is representing my ability really. The GUI brought this in a while ago and I have to say it makes the process a lot better. *In a competirive round mainly, that's a whole different area of "difference". ** Another difference in the system (not the system as such I suppose) is the fact that we have winter rules from Oct-Mar, HC adjustments generally don't happen during this period, I have been 17.2 since last Oct despite having had some rounds under Net Par.