Handicap-Forward vs Back Tee Box

[GJT]

Assertion:

Theoretically, a handicap index should work out to be similar, whether or not you play the forward or back tee box. 

I subscribe to the “Tee it Forward” concept. It makes sense in many ways-except perhaps your ego. But I have noticed that I tend to play and score better when I play a shorter course. (Eg: 5500 vs 6000 yds)

This makes no sense to me. Either the rating for 5500 yds is too low or the rating for 6000 yds is too high.

Discuss

[saevel25]

Yea, that can happen. The issue is, some golfers games fit better for certain courses or certain course lengths.

[dennyjones]

The different tee will have a different slope and rating.   The forward tees are usually easier because the longer irons don't come into play as often.   If you read "Lowest Score Wins", you see that @iacas has statistical proof that it is easier to score from a closer distance.    Just an example....If you play from the forward tees at 5500 yards and hit your driver 200 yards, you may have 130 yards to the green.   It's easier to hit that shot than a longer shot of 170 if you hit from the back tees.   

Grab the book, it will change your game.  

[DaveP043]

I have to assume you're playing under the USGA system (that's a hint for you to fill out your profile, let us know where you are, and maybe your handicap level).  It that's right, take a look at your differentials.  You can calculate these for each round as

(Adjusted Score - Course rating) times 113 / Course Slope Rating

You may find that when corrected for slope and CR, your differentials are pretty similar.  If there is still a significant trend to lower differentials for one tee as compared to the other, the ratings may indeed need adjustment.  On the other hand, different lengths affect people differently, so you may just be at one end of a spectrum, while other players differentials are lower from the long tees.  

[iacas]

As others have said, @GJT, are you judging just by the scores, or the actual differentials?

What are the ratings/slopes from the two tees?

[Groucho Valentine]

I sometimes will play from the ladies tees as tournament prep just to get myself into a scoring mindset instead of a defensive one. The game is alot more fun when you're not punishing yourself by playing from longer distances all the time. But I've found the what tee should be played has more do with with skill than how far a players hits it. Ive played with many of player who don't regularly drive the ball 250 that get around 7000-7200 yard courses just fine. I barley drive the ball 280 and I've played the US Open tees at Bethapage Black without too much struggle. But i wouldn't want to play with a 20 handi that drives the ball 300 from back there. 

[HJJ003]

I would think that it is very course dependent for most people. If a course has a lot of forced carries or really tough angles from the back tees then Incould see how that would actually have a negative impact on someone’s handicap that prefers shorter courses or has a higher handicap in general. For example: I prefer courses around 6300 yards. One course I play is 6600, and I have not problem shooting my handicap or better there. However, another course I have played multiple times is 6500 yards and the continuous forced carries and angles off the tee box drive my game crazy. I prefer to tee it forward there even though it’s only 6000 yards from the forward men’s box. 

[Piz]

I can think of a few holes on which moving up brings hazards into play that are not reachable from farther back.  In those cases; teeing forward requires greater precision off the tee...or less club...which defeats the purpose of moving up.  

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, GJT said:

Assertion:

Theoretically, a handicap index should work out to be similar, whether or not you play the forward or back tee box. 

I subscribe to the “Tee it Forward” concept. It makes sense in many ways-except perhaps your ego. But I have noticed that I tend to play and score better when I play a shorter course. (Eg: 5500 vs 6000 yds)

This makes no sense to me. Either the rating for 5500 yds is too low or the rating for 6000 yds is too high.

Discuss

Assuming you're already shooting in the 80s low mid or high, it really just depends upon how far you hit.

A couple guys I played with this last week said they wouldn't play the blue tees until they shoot 75 off the whites. For them, it probably makes a lot of sense. For a longer hitter with a horrible short game, it might not make any sense.

I think it really depends upon the golfer.

[dave s]

On an oddly-related note, our league has a Back In Black (AC/DC) tribute night where we play from the way back, (black) tees.  Everyone complains about the added distance to cover but our league scoring guy indicates that in general, the raw gross numbers barely increase on that night.

Note: I'm one of the complainers even though scoring from the black tees isn't affected for some strange reason.  We keep our usual hdcp numbers even though the course slope/rating is much different from the black tee boxes.

[GJT]

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I have to assume you're playing under the USGA system (that's a hint for you to fill out your profile, let us know where you are, and maybe your handicap level).  It that's right, take a look at your differentials.  You can calculate these for each round as

(Adjusted Score - Course rating) times 113 / Course Slope Rating

You may find that when corrected for slope and CR, your differentials are pretty similar.  If there is still a significant trend to lower differentials for one tee as compared to the other, the ratings may indeed need adjustment.  On the other hand, different lengths affect people differently, so you may just be at one end of a spectrum, while other players differentials are lower from the long tees.  

Yes I track my handicap as you have noted. I have data for about 10 years and have noticed that my gross and differentials are 1-3 strokes better on shorter course. In fact my handicap (23) is 20 on the shorter course. So, as others have commented, it may just be distance. But I am surprised that actual playing difficulty (bunkers, water, narrowness of fairway etc etc) is not factored into the slope factor. Oh well...

3 hours ago, dave s said:

On an oddly-related note, our league has a Back In Black (AC/DC) tribute night where we play from the way back, (black) tees.  Everyone complains about the added distance to cover but our league scoring guy indicates that in general, the raw gross numbers barely increase on that night.

Note: I'm one of the complainers even though scoring from the black tees isn't affected for some strange reason.  We keep our usual hdcp numbers even though the course slope/rating is much different from the black tee boxes.

This is interesting. Perhaps the collective “go for it” attitude is in play here. Like Yogi Berra used to say...”90% of sports is half mental” :)

5 hours ago, Piz said:

I can think of a few holes on which moving up brings hazards into play that are not reachable from farther back.  In those cases; teeing forward requires greater precision off the tee...or less club...which defeats the purpose of moving up.  

Oh yah. I agree that sometimes hazards come into play that would otherwise be avoidable. Don’t you hate it when you “play it safe” and still screw up?

[GJT]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

As others have said, @GJT, are you judging just by the scores, or the actual differentials?

What are the ratings/slopes from the two tees?

I am talking about both actually. I score 3-5 strokes lower and my handicap on the shorter courses is 1-2 points lower. I have data going back about 10 years. My distance off the tee is my biggest concern, so the shorter courses gives me a chance to make fewer errors approaching the green. I guess length really is king in this game. Thanks 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, GJT said:

I am talking about both actually. I score 3-5 strokes lower and my handicap on the shorter courses is 1-2 points lower. I have data going back about 10 years. My distance off the tee is my biggest concern, so the shorter courses gives me a chance to make fewer errors approaching the green. I guess length really is king in this game. Thanks 

The handicapping system does what it can, but there are always going to be courses favored by some kinds of players over others, tees that favor certain kinds of players - even of the same handicap index - over others, etc.

For a system that has only two numbers - the rating and the slope - it does a pretty good job, IMO.

[GJT]

I did a quick search and found the following info on how the USGA determines a course slope factor. It is a good explanation:

https://www.thoughtco.com/usga-course-and-slope-rating-1561294

The article states:

“Course rating used to be based almost solely on length. The longer the course, the higher the rating. But obstacles (degree of difficulty), in addition to distance, are now part of the consideration”.

Who knew? Thanks all for your comments.

Edited February 21, 2018 by GJT
Link error

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, GJT said:

Who knew?

A ton of us.

I've been a course rater for about 12 years, and captain of my team for the last three.

It's course rating and slope. 72.3/132. Those two numbers (not specifically those two numbers) are usually on the scorecard, etc.

[Buckeyebowman]

If I'm incorrect please say so, but at one time I thought a component of the course rating was the course's "resistance to scoring". I've heard any number of brain dead sports talk show hosts comment that there is "nobody" playing defense against the golfer! Never mind that the course plays it's own defense!

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

If I'm incorrect please say so, but at one time I thought a component of the course rating was the course's "resistance to scoring". I've heard any number of brain dead sports talk show hosts comment that there is "nobody" playing defense against the golfer! Never mind that the course plays it's own defense!

I think you're confusing a course's rating in "Top 100" lists with the "course rating" for handicaps.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-our-panel-ranks-the-courses

[GJT]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

A ton of us.

I've been a course rater for about 12 years, and captain of my team for the last three.

It's course rating and slope. 72.3/132. Those two numbers (not specifically those two numbers) are usually on the scorecard, etc.

What a great job! Just the guy I want to talk to :)

When you assign slope/rating to a course how do you account for various pin placements? Some of these can be diabolical...