Cleveland has played at a high level all year. I don't follow them to the same extent you probably do, but they kicked the snot out of the Tigers in every series. Didn't seem like they went through any sort of slump.
Ok, Im not gonna pretend to understand this perfectly but this thread has branched off in a couple directions I had not intended. And thats NOT a bad thing, as several have reached out, and Im always looking for new golf friends. So thats a cool thing that happened cus of this thread, but mainly its a shout out to all of you for kind words, support, and tips for my game.
As I mentioned earlier, too many have contributed for me to thank you all individually. But the tip I got about flaring ones feet out, the you tube video someone shared to help my shoulder clear my chin, the well wishes when I hurt my shoulder. Those and many more contributions from you all, I am very greatful for and my friends on tst deserve to hear it.
Now, as far as things a man shouldnt think or say, thats ludicrous! A mans true strength comes from paving his own way regardless of what others say, do or think. Im kind of an emotional guy and I get that freaks some of u out. But I was raised primarily by my Mother and grandmother and Ive been through enough sh*+ in my life not to take anything or ANYONE for granted. That means sometimes u gotta let people know they mean something to u! AND ALL MY FRIENDS ON TST MEAN SOMETHING TO ME CUS THEY HAVE ALL ENRICHED MY LIFE OR MY GAME IN SOME WAY! For those of u who cant wrap your head around it, well they can kiss my 9 iron!
Their best 10 rounds has a much wider range than my best ten. My best ten rounds are all within 2 strokes of each other, looking at my differentials. Their best ten rounds probably have a range of around 5-10 strokes, depending on their handicap. This means that if they match their best round of the last twenty, they're playing between 3 and 5 strokes better than their handicap. If I match my best round of the last twenty, I'm playing 1 stroke better than my handicap.
Playing individually against a high handicapper I have no large complaints (other than my course putting a par 3 as the #1 handicap hole...), the system works out over time to level the playing field if I play the same person repeatedly. Playing against a full field of people in a net tournament is when it irritates me to no end, and I'll explain why using the table of probabilities for exceptional tournament scores here: http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html
A 22-30 handicap golfer has a 1 in 40 chance of scoring a net -4. As a plus handicap I have a less than 1 in 151 chance (that's listed for the 0-5 range) of matching his net score. In a field of 50 people of varying handicap ranges, you might say that the individual golfer in the field (of higher handicap) has a 1 in 50 chance or so (accounting for varying handicaps) chance at shooting a net score of -4.That means there's a ~50% chance at least one of the higher handicap golfers in the field will net a -4, while there is a .6% chance that I will be able to beat that score. If you change the score required to a net -3, assuming about 1:25 odds using that table, then it is a near certainty that at least one of the 25 higher handicap golfers in the field will shoot a net -3 or better. I have less than a 1.3% chance of beating that score (adjusting for the fact that I am beyond the 0-5 range). If the tournament has any number of players with a handicap of over 30, the odds become even worse for me since each one of those players has a 1:22 chance of shooting -4 or better.
Even in one of the best case scenarios, where one of the players only scores a net -3, I have well under a 2% chance of posting a score that can beat that. I would have to, quite literally, play the best round of golf in my life to win the average tournament because the best gross score I have ever posted in a tournament round is 3 under par, which nets out to either -2 or -1, depending on the slope of the course played. I would have to shoot five under par to beat or tie the 25 handicapper who had a decent day and shot 94 instead of 97. Anyone who has ever played at that level before (myself included) knows just how easy it can be for those three strokes to be shaved off on any particular round. Maybe they hit one less tee shot OB that day because of a lucky bounce off a tree, or perhaps they didn't lose a golf ball because they looked for longer than normal due to the tournament.
The bottom line is if it was a fair system I would have a 2% chance of winning a 50 player tournament of all different handicaps, but in reality I have closer to a 1% chance of shooting a net -3 or -4 (a normal winning score in net tournaments this size, having played in many myself). A 25 handicap golfer has a 6.8% chance of shooting a net -3 or -4, so you can assume at least one -3 or -4 will be posted if the field has just fifteen (out of 50 total) 22-30 handicap golfers. This means high handicap golfers are about 7x more likely than me to be in a position where they can win a net tournament.
I don't think it's unfair to me in net tournaments because I never win, it seems like the other guy always does, blah blah blah. I think it's unfair because, if you look at the numbers, it truly is. It's almost a certainly that at least one -3 or -4 will be posted in any net tournament of 50 players or more, and for me to beat that or match it I would have to play the best round of my life in that tournament, which has a 1% or less chance of actually happening for me. Handicaps can work okay up to a point, but I'm at a level where I don't even know if I am physically capable of shooting the net -4 (playing to the level of a +5, or the handicap of Phil Mickelson) that it would take for me to win or tie. When one person quite literally has to play like a hall of fame golfer to have a chance at winning or tying, it's generally not a fair system (considering the fact that I am nowhere near a hall of fame golfer myself).
That is likely revealing about Tufts attitudes toward some of the changes in the air when he wrote the book.
It also shows his relative lack of familiarity with the issue of smaller golf courses and municipal courses with heavy play and a relative lack of funds.
His comment seems to view a golfer expected to repair a ball mark as either doing menial labor or perhaps taking away someone's livelihood. But allowing the relative mass of golfers (vs greenskeepers) to fix their own pockmarks likely helped keep the game more enjoyable and affordable for a lot of folks, and allowed what greens staff a course has to focus their time on other needed work.