A good hack

Jason, as BuckeyeNut correctly notes it will be player specific as to who it helps. However, I am pretty confident that most players will benefit their HC by moving up. You can see the trend in the Tee it Forward thread started by iacas. Now, as you are right to question, it probably helps your HC but does it help your game? My answer is two-fold: 1) I think for the higher mid-cappers the answer is yes, since it will help curb bad habits like overswinging, foster better club choices (since the pressure to hit driver is less), and ultimately generate more confidence due to less ‘blow-up’ holes 2) for lower mid-cappers (10-12 and below) it is a little murkier, and depending on your goals, can be a no. For example, if you’re a solid 7 looking to improve down to a 1-3 for the purpose of entering flight A gross tournaments, the state mid-am, or perhaps a US Open qualifier, then I think you have to start generating your handicap from at least the back tees and preferably the tip/professional tees. These tournaments are rarely, if ever, played from 5900-6100 yards and the lack of familiarity with that length/condition will expose your game badly come tournament time, especially if there is any type of marginal weather. I’ve even gone further in a few other threads, noting that handicap calculations should be tee-box or length dependent. At the least, a special designation should be made for handicaps of 3 or below because of the minimum standards set for entry in state and national qualifiers. It’s true that lower cappers will realize some of the same benefits as higher cappers. And without the tournament angle to consider, it certainly may be more beneficial to your game (if you are on the shorter side) to move on up and realize your HC gains accordingly. But at the end of the day, for reasons mentioned above, I’d rather have BuckeyeNut’s 0.0 index than a ‘tee it forward’ assisted 0.0.

While I love iacas' direct answer, I'd agree that there should be two tracked handicaps - tournament and non tournament stroke rounds. Certainly helps in a situation like yours and would also have the added benefit of exposing those danged sandbaggers who always seem to post the impossible round come prize time. I'd even also add the the current handicap system should be tweaked a bit, although I know I will be in the minority on my viewpoint. This is in part due to the phoenomenom you cite of tournament pins being placed more difficult and tees being in their appropriate locations, and sometimes even moved back from that point (leading the course to play slightly to moderately more difficult than its normal course rating). The main change I'd add would be that, for given ranges of handicaps, only certain scores from the appropriate tees should be used in the calculation. Thus, if you are say 0-4, you could only use scores from 6700+ yards or maybe something like a course rating tougher than 72.5/130. From 5-12, something like 6400+ or 71.0/120. Just kind of winging it here, but you get the idea. The goal is basically to get players of certain abilities to play every practice round closer to the round they would likely see in a tournament, and thus eliminate the vanity cap 'shock effect' that happens when a player realizes his cap isn't really legit in a tournament setting. As for your friends' above, they really need to play from further back if they plan on playing 'big money' tournaments, and of course putt out all the gimmes as well.

I also have weigh on the side of the long game as well, and offer up some other reasons that haven't been mentioned yet. A) It is a lot cheaper to have a comparably better long game. I lose less than 1 golf ball/round, compared to my 20 hdcp playing partner, who routinely loses 3-5. Depending on the ball you like to play (even cheap ones), your looking at an extra $200-$600/year added to your green fees, playing about once/week. Taking those $ and applying it back to more rounds/equipment/range time = more opportunites for improvement. B) Getting on/around the green in regulation let's you concentrate better on said short game during your round, which should filter back in to your development. I think most here would agree that it is much easier to focus on a par/birdie putt (or chip) than one for triple bogey. C) As mentioned above, generally you can't be penalized for a bad chip/putt (with exceptions for tough greens), but you can get penalized for lost balls/water/ob. OB can be a real killer depending on the hole. This all said, if your bunker play is 'horrible', obviously you want to get it to the point where it is at least mediocre, and soon. But beyond that, I think you get better bang for your buck trying to lose 3-5 shots in penalties, with some positive 'virtuous cycle' effects to your short game, by improving your consistency with your long game. If you can get down to the single digits, then the short game does become the best way to shave off the last chunk of strokes. JMHO of course.

Future TP - As noted before it is a little hard to analyze your swing with the camera angle - glare from the sun doesn't help either (even when blown up full screen, I struggled to see details). I think garybbq is right in that your grip appears to be on the stronger side. And as you noted the transition is a little quick. Neither of these are really an "issue" is terms of your stock shot shape, you'll just have to be aware and learn to stay on top of your tempo depending on how stressful the situation. Everything else looks fine to my amateur eye (from what I can see) - setup, posture, angles, swing plane. I am curious though - how comfortable are you with hitting fades, both low & high with your swing? Given where you want to go, you definitely want to have these in your arsenal.

Soon to be added to the list of things you don't discuss publicly - SEC football (adding this to religion & politics)

Hi Rooster - I can see that you have shortened your swing a little bit and that it is helping in that you aren't casting your hands/breaking the plane quite as much as in the past, hopefully leading to more consistent contact. I used to have to the same issue, and like you, worked hard on cutting down my swing, especially with the irons, to help keep it more consistently on plane and remove the hand/wrist compensation action that would cause the sprays. Others have commented on the hip/weight issue at contact, and I won't comment on it in particular, as you are already getting a lot of info. I am by no means a pro, just a decent self-taught low capper, so please take any advice with caution. I think I can help with the plane/hands issue a little, and will outline my experience/drills accordingly. About 6 months ago I made a conscious effort to reduce the wristy action as much as possible. I started by hitting a lot of 40-50 yd pitch shots with a PW, focusing on driving through them as opposed to flopping them and keeping the left arm nice & straight throughout. I would try and key in on the good 'pinch' feeling that would occur with a nicely compressed shot. I think you should notice that you will naturally have to lag the club a little bit on these shots to get the same driving action. I would my start my range sessions with these shots, doing so up a 5I. I would then start hitting 3/4 shots, again focusing on the left arm and reproducing the slight lag & pinch feeling at impact. At about 80% of my old swing I noticed I would struggle to keep the left arm straight, so rather than take yoga to get slightly better rotation to compensate, I just cut off the swing there. Distance went down a lot at first, but with better contact over time I've given up about a club on the irons, and about 15-20 yds on the woods. I then promptly bought the Rocketballz driver & hybrids and gained that lost distance back, at least for those clubs :). Some side benefits of the above routine - you will hopefully stay down at impact more consistently/effectively (some others had mentioned this as a possible issue in your swing), and you might naturally develop a little more weight effective transition to your left hip. I say might, because your mind will naturally want to still hit the ball as far, even with a cut down swing, and this may force you to instinctively develop better timing on the above. Or it may have you do other bad things, so be watchful. Going back to your swing - I know in your mind your thinking 80%, but from your videos it looks to my eye it looks more like a 5-10% cutdown. For a true 75-80% backswing I'd take a look at Camilo Villegas or Tony Romo face on. Look at how short their backswings are by comparison. That may not be comfortable for you, and may require too much of a swing re-creation. And as a final side note, KJ Choi comes OTT a little, and Bubba Watson breaks plane on his backswing, so it is possible to hit fine with 'non-standard' hitches. So don't get too overboard with trying to get all technically perfect - I think it is the balance of technical & comfort that will get you best result at this point.

Continuing on the theme of slow play - I will say lazy greenskeeping and/or poor event planning that makes it even worse. I hate to bash to course staff, as I know the vast majority of the time they are doing the best they can to keep the $ coming in. But in the words of ESPN, sometimes I can't help but think 'come on man'. The prime example - having very difficult, tournament hole locations on every hole, on Saturday. And then hosting a corporate scramble full of beginners without a 2-putt limit rule on the greens that same day. It's not exactly great form to host such an event on Saturday to begin with. And these poor guys don't need any reason to stretch out the torture even longer. 6.5 hours later, I feel myself wanting to have a follow-up chat with the one of the assistant pro's at the end of the round. I do my best to resist, and just try to avoid the course for awhile. I've booked tee times where I was informed there was no tournament for that weekend, only to have one squeezed in after the fact. Thankfully has only happened a few times, but it absolutely miserable when it does.

Driver RBZ: 260-280 3 Wood RBZ: 230-240 3 Wood old: 210 (using as effective 5 wood, looking to replace) 4 iron: 180 5 Iron; 170 6 Iron: 160 7 Iron: 145 8 Iron: 130 9 iron: 120 PW: 110 GW: 100 SW:85 Reason for shorter iron lengths is due to a 3/4 cut-down swing for more accuracy/help keep swing on plane. Looking to replace old 3 wood with RBZ strong 3 hybrid 18.5 degree or strong 5 wood 18 degree. And looking to add 4H, preferably strong 21 degree in place of a 3 iron.

I actually have a decent amount of help to offer here but could you verify that it is his lower or upper back? My guess is lower but it will affect my post so I need more specific info. Will follow-up later tonight...

@goblue I’ll agree to disagree with you on this one. I’d much rather be the scratch golfer playing Oakmont any day of the week. To me they are two different golfers, and one is particularly better suited to playing say, the US amateur qualifier. I think the current definition allows for two different types of scratch golfers, and there really should only be one, since it is an important standard that dictates entry into certain tournaments. The weather and mental factors also were a part of reasoning above. OK, gotta make myself let this go, although I am getting more tempted to do that experiment…

@cody I concede your point and will stop worrying about it after this thread. The KISS approach works well in a lot of sports for obvious reasons. Here was my follow-up post… Basically I was bothered by the feeling that one can carry a scratch index without necessarily being a scratch golfer. The distance definition played into my thinking here. For me, being a longer hitter, I feel it would be easier to get to 0 playing 6200 yd courses rated 71.0/115 at the local muni vs. 7200 yd, 75.0/140 tournament hosting courses. Two reasons here – weather and the related mental factor. When your bag is already stretched, that 20 mph wind (common here in TX), adds another dimension @ 7200 that doesn’t fully show up in the course/slope. Mentally much tougher to deal with, sometimes to point where I think its becomes counterproductive to improvement - of course that’s just an opinion. From the above, I’d say the USGA should tighten its definition somehow – for example, maybe only scores from the longest tees should be allowed in determining the handicap. I am sure there is better way to phrase/define this. Having now discussed this, can’t help but be a little tempted to start playing the whites J for a few months (normally alternate between blue and tips) to test my gut instinct. It would be fun to see how much flak I catch out there from randoms trying to play the blue behind me, even if I let them know it is part of an “experiment “ J … If I actually go through I’ll post a separate thread with results…

@ Joepro - That's a very fair point, and I had thought about that prior to posing the question. You'll always have freak exceptions to the rule (Pavin is a perfect example), however at the same time the general benchmark should represent the majority of the typical scratch golfers, and not the exceptions. Thinking about it some more, doing away with the distance metric seems the better option, as it seems antiquated anyway and just clouds the picture of what a scratch golfer should be. I'll detail this a little more below. @ Harmonius I think I have confused myself by instinctively thinking that a 0 course handicap = par for that course, which is obviously not the case (and I should know better). Yes, the slope does not matter for 0 index golfer since the x/113 * 0 will always be 0. That said, I am still bothered by the definition, and will follow-up with another post on this tomorrow.

Hi everyone - New poster/member here. Like many of the lower handicap's here, would love to become scratch in a few years, but would be perfectly happy getting to a 2-3 index given real life time constraints (job, wife, future kids, etc). Been thinking about and reading up on a lot of entertaining threads here with regards to the scratch subject. Couldn't find too much feedback with regards to this specific idea so thought I'd start stir the pot a little and see what you all thought. As most of you know, the USGA defines stratch as a player who 1) "can play to a course handicap of 0 on any and all rated courses and 2) "hits the tee shot an average of 250 yds and can reach a 470 yd par 4 in two shots at sea level." More on the bolded part below: Given the increasing length/difficulty on the modern golf course I feel that 1 & 2 above are now at least somewhat exclusive of each other, and thus a new, more contemporary definition of scratch is needed. For example, I have trouble seeing how someone with that length could play to 0 handicap on say, Augusta National, or even your more difficult 75 course rating/140 slope, 7200 yd challenging local country club. Modest breezes and or seasonally cold weather would only add to my argument. That said, I do feel that this hypothetical golfer could play to a 0 index (i.e. shot the course rating on a "good day"), which is a few strokes easier. Thus I would change the above in one of two ways: A) "can play to a handicap index of 0 on any and all rated courses" while keeping 2) the same or B) "hits his driver an average of 270 yards and can reach a 500 yd par 4 in two shots at sea level" while keeping 1) the same I choose to use the word driver just for a little more clarity, as tee shot could encompass other types of clubs. The old definition, to me, seems more applicable to the game 30-40 years when courses were shorter, in line with less technologically advanced clubs. Now, this is the opinion of a decent golfer (or good hack, if you will), and I am curious to see what the better golfers think. Yes, this is probably nitpicking but just couldn't help myself - have a little free time this afternoon .