reid

I don't know Phil but I met his wife Amy at the Arnold Palmer Bay Hill Invitational. I had just come from the Golf Channel where I was interviewed. She was lovely. Genuinely interested. Looks you straight in the eyes when talking to you, remembers your name. Phil walked by a few times while we were talking during a few holes. Blushed like a schoolboy. Still in love...

To make Augusta more difficult, they could thicken and lengthen the rough and add more trees (thus narrowing the fairway). It is much more difficult to hit the ball below tree branches from thick rough or to curve it around those same trees. Its become a bombers course much more than in the Faldo days which makes Zach Johnson's victory last year even more amazing to me (no par-5s in two). But personally, I hope they leave it alone unless the guys start tearing it apart again. Augusta is so unique. And magical. As for the TPC Sawgrass vs Augusta difficulty issue, I've never played Augusta (even in the benign slow-green "off-season" ) so I'm not qualified to make a judgement but I have played the TPC Sawgrass in tournaments twice. The greens were running at about 11; much slower that at the Players and the rough was about 3.5 inches. You have to use a lot of 3 woods off the tees because if you get off the beaten track, you are in serious trouble. There are moguls around the greens and you end up with weird stances in deep, thick rough pitching to sloping, elevated greens. It can be difficult to shoot even a decent score if you're a little off. At Augusta the premium isn't of being particularly straight but the greens are so difficult. I've been told if you don't know your way around,you could 3-putt 6 or 7 greens. which one's tougher? Depends on your style of play.

To The Gill: My book is about course management (mostly my own blunders until I learned how to exercise better judgement) but also about a lot of other things. I think the best CM book I've read is Ray Floyd's "The Elements of Scoring".

Mrobbie: Play the ball further back in your stance and hit wedges only until you get your rhythm back.

Maintaining my lag is the key for me. When my ball starts going to the left, I increase the lag in my swing and it straightens out.

Thank you cbe_golfer. I'm glad to be back. I've met some fine people at this site. Donkba and Backspin: Don't get discouraged. Work on the "non outdoors" part of your game. Herron and Lehman are from Minnesota. Hey I got invited onto the Golf Channel! I'll let you guys know some dates when I get them.

How long to get to scratch and how much harder is it to get to a 2 vs to go beyond that to say a +2? Here is what happened to me for what its worth. I played as a kid and quit with a 2 handicap at age 15. Then I started again at age 46 and could play to a 3 from the start. (the new equipment and my much stronger body helped me immensely because when I was a skinny 15 year old, I couldn't reach the long par-4's in two ). I got to scratch in about two months. Then I improved steadily for a year and got to a +2.2 based on scores I shot in tournaments on the tours in Asia. Its harder to get much lower than that if you are not a long hitter because you can't reach (I couldn't, anyway) the par-5's in two shots. By the way the par 5's are all long on the pro tours. I couldn't reach ANY of them in a year of playing!) If you have a sloppy short game then maybe you can find a few strokes there but my short game was what was getting me to a +2 already so that wasn't the answer for me. This is why it is so hard to improve when you get down to a low handicap. There just aren't many strokes left on the course! Remember the long hitters on tour reach the par 5's in two so they're playing a "par 68" course. In other words they are playing "even par" too. I decided that to get better from there, I was going to have to do two things: One: hit the ball farther. Two: stop leaving my putts short So I went into the gym a month ago. I am now hitting the ball 285 off the tee and I can get on the par 5's in two. And I FORCED myself to get my putts to the hole. (I started playing less break and hitting them firmer). I have gotten my handicap down to +4.1 in my latest calculation. It just went to a better plateau because my birdies went from 2 per round to more than 4 on average. I also think this is why we make progress in golf in plateaus- because all of a sudden something works that helps us make (in my case) 4's on the par fives instead of 5's.

Erik: I am directing my comments to Will, not you. "your system?" Please also see yours and others' posts from last February. Ignoring the slope below the course rating was brought to the USGA's attention by me more than 2 years ago.

Will: I initially tried to handle this discreetly with the USGA. I wasn't and still am not interested in embarassing them. I received a very tiffy response to my first letter and engaged in a 10 letter exchange with them (always very respectful on my part). Boy, am I glad I saved those letters! But I got nowhere. I don't know what the title of the person I was dealing with was, what her mathematical aptitude was, etc. but let me just say it this way: I don't think she got an 800 on the math SAT. I couldn't get her to understand. So I stopped trying to explain it to her. Then I did the patent. Then I put it in my book. When you hear from the USGA, please refer them to me. I will be enthusiastic about meeting with them and making a formula that is fair to all players regardless of ability. I have a lot of ideas; some of which are in the patent and some of which I included in my book. There seems to be a sticking point for some regarding the issue of the slope being only for bogey golfers. I do believe that this was the purpose of the slope rating's inclusion. However, the mathematical reality is that it affects all non-zero handicaps. So it is simply not only for bogey golfers. (It affects a 2 handicapper's typical "10 best of his last 20" score of 74 on a course rated at 72, for example.) I happen to be a + handicapper and I can assure you, the severity of a course (based on its slope rating) affects us too (and me far more than Phil Mickelson). Thus, saying that all players scratch or better should not be adjusted for slope is not the answer to a fair formula. When you read my book and/or we continue this discussion privately or in this forum, you will hear some of my other ideas on the matter. I appreciate your interest and have enjoyed discussing this topic with you and the other members of TST.com. You have impressed me with your understanding of the issues involved and your interest in contacting the source (be it me, Dean Knuth, or the USGA) is commendable and appreciated.

Will: It was a few years ago that I brought this to the USGA's attention . I may have been responsible for them asking Mr Knuth to provide the memo. They sent me several attachments to a rebuttal e mail. The attachments contained mathematical errors and the e mail that they sent me made no sense at all. They kept claiming that because Tiger woods can beat a scratch golfer more easily on a very severe course, his handicap should be adjusted toward zero. That is the opposite of what needs to be done since he would need to give more strokes to such a player were they to have a match. In other words, they proved my point by saying 2+2=5. You will read in my book that I had to get lawyers and file a patent to protect my ideas. Shindig: Did you get much out of my long explanation of the meaning of slope?

cbe_golfer: That was really nice of you. I'm speechless. JP Bouffard of TST.com will be publishing his review over the Christmas holidays. Writing the book was something new for me. As you will learn from the coming chapters, I am a right-sided brain person- not a left-sided one. Writing turned out to be only part of the story. I could produce another book about what it is like, as an unknown, to get an agent and look for a publisher. And then of course, after all of that is done, getting the word out to potential readers is "Volume III". The biggest issue I had to overcome was the disparate nature of the subject matter. Editors at the big houses told me not to include the stories of the injured children because it is a golf book and would confuse the audience. But I held firm. I wanted to offer a real-life picture of Cambodia and my life there while struggling to make it as a pro. In the end, the story is about "Striking It Rich" in ways that go far beyond the game of golf.

So. I've made my point that the current formula is wrong. Everyone sees that now. How you decide to fix it is another thing but consider this... If I shoot 68 every day at Pine Valley (slope 153 from the back) and you shoot 68 every day at Easy Acres (same course rating) . You will be giving me strokes when we go to another course to play a match. I'll take that bet every time. If you ignore the slope modifier, we play even. Guess what? I'll still beat you more often than you will beat me because it takes more skill to shoot 68 at Pine Valley than at Easy Acres. Throw away the slope system for + handicappers? That's one of the options for sure. So is the "no plus system " I proposed in my (dare I mention it?) book. But if you choose to use the slope system, you have to make the matches fair because that is the SPIRIT of the handicapping concept- so that golfers of varying abilities can have a fair match. Bottom line: The current USGA system is not fair in its present state. That's what I've been saying in this thread for 5 days, guys.

That's what I meant. Its the average course- the one with a slope rating of 113. It (as you know well) has a slope of 1 as do all courses of rating 113. So it should be labeled "Course 3 (slope 113). Handicap index is the x axis. I know this doesn't apply to 99.99% of golfers. But my point is, hey, why not do it right? As it is now, two guys (A and B) shoot 65 every day at their home courses. one guy's(A) course has a slope rating of 135. The other guy's (B) has a slope rating of 100. The handicaps come out to be +5.6 for A and +7.6 for B. B should give A 2 strokes if they were to have a match?? C'mon. (A's the better player!) making a +4 into a +3.5 because the course has a high slope rating is not ok because it is easier for a + handicapper to beat a scratch golfer on a more severe course (higher slope rating). In other words it is easier for Phil Mickelson to beat a scratch golfer at Oakmont than at some rinky dink course. Alot easier. So he should have to give more not less strokes were they to have a match. So if he plays at Death Valley (72/155) and shoots 68's all the time he should have a handicap of more than +4 (more "plus", not less). You and I of all people should not be disagreeing on this.

Big Lex: That's precisely why its wrong. A score on a lower slope rated course shouldn't look better than the same score on a higher rated course. PS did you go to Washington and Lee? My two best childhood friends went there. Great school and Great Lacrosse team.

My opinion on why it is flawed? Its because the formula moves the plus handicapper's index in the wrong direction for scores shot on courses of high slope rating. I already posted that. Oh I see why you're making that comment... Go see Will's post. He asked me where the article was. I didn't mention it because I told you that I wouldn't ask people to refer to the book anymore and I haven't. Please see my other posts on problems with chipping and pitching and problems with putting. I'm helping a lot of people (I hope) Should the yellow line really be labeled "Handicap Index" in your graph? It looks like it should be labeled "Course X"

Alex B I watched your video. Your grip is beautiful. Your forearms are nicely in line with the putter shaft. Your ball is too far back in your stance . (causing the ball to tend to go to the right) Your follow through is to the right of your target line. This is why you putt better when you open your stance. (because its harder to follow through to the right when your shoulders are pointed to the left. This is all why you tend to push your putts. (Today you pulled them probably because you over compensated) But you average 29 putts per round which isn't bad at all. Get your GIR's up and you will be in business. I hope that helps

Shindig: You are probably playing the ball too far forward in your stance. Play it off your right ankle (if you're a righty) and rotate your body through the shot so you are facing the target at your finish. Don't hit it with your arms and wrist only without rotating your body through and don't let the clubhead pass your hands on the follow-through. I hope that helps.

Yes Shindig. It comes from the "slope" of the line on a Cartesian coordinate system (like the x,y graphs you used in high school). Here is a rough (ie not rigorous explanation) of why its called "slope". A scratch golfer will average approximately (lets ignore the .96 factor for now) 72 in his 10 best scores of his last 20 rounds on a course (call it "Average Acres) rated at 72 and of average severity (more on this later). A 20 handicapper will average 92 in his 10 best of his last 20 on the same course. Now when they go to Oakmont (an extremely difficult, severe course) the scratch golfer's score will increase roughly in accordance with the increase in course rating (I would guess Oakmont is rated at about 78 from the tournament tees but I don't know). The scratch golfer is supposed to be able to average 78 in his ten best of his last 20 scores. In contrast, the 20 handicapper cannot average 98 in his ten best of his last 20 because the severity of Oakmont will injure his scoring ability far more than it will the scratch golfer's. He may average 120 in his ten best of his last 20. Now here is where the word "slope" comes in... Think back at the Cartesian coordinate system (the X-Y graph). As you go out to higher and higher handicappers (to the right on the X-axis), their ability to shoot "what they are suppose to be able to shoot" (based on their handicap and the course ratings) lessens. In other words it is harder for a 20 handicapper to play to his handicap at Oakmont than at "Average Acres". The line on the graph is very steep for Oakmont because as you go to the right on the X-axis and plot the player's acores, all the points are going to be high above 98 (around 120). Thus Oakmont has a high "slope" rating. (Draw a line through the middle of those points and through 0,0 and that line will have a slope (Y = mX +B, where m is the slope and B is the y-intercept (at Average Acres, B= 72)). Now over at Average Acres the slope Rating will be 113 (a number chosen to be average so that there is a standard to which all other courses can be compared and so that you won't get the sticky problem of having negative slopes). Our 20 handicapper's scores (his ten best of his last 20 I mean) will plot nicely around this average slope line (which will go up in accordance if you will (the slope value will be exactly 1) with the increase in the handicap of the player you are plotting SO THE 20 HANDICAPPER'S TEN BEST OF HIS LAST 20 WILL PLOT AROUND 92). Now lets go over to "Easy Acres " and plot some scores from this very flat, no hazards, no rough, short course with no forced carries. The scratch golfer will still shoot the course rating here according to the theory but the 20 handicapper will benefit from the "lack of severity" of this course and his best ten of his last 20 scores will average below 92. Maybe something like 86... THE TEN BEST SCORES WILL PLOT AROUND 86... In such a case the slope of the line will be less than 1 and the slope rating for Easy Acres will be less than the standard average of 113. It might have a slope rating of 100 or 92 or something. In english now instead of math language... The severity of Oakmont hurts the bogey golfer much more than the scratch golfer because the scratch golfer is so good that he avoids many of the severe characteristics of the course. So his score won't go up AS MUCH AS THE BOGEY GOLFER'S WILL when they play Oakmont. That's all there is to it! To Will from a few posts ago... My mathematical analysis is in my book. The .96 bonus for excellence is handled correctly as both you and Erik stated in your posts. In an old thread at THESANDTRAP.COM, someone had it backwards. Will: The USGA's response was of the 2+2=5 variety. I would love to sit down with the person who came up with the slope idea. He or she must be brilliant. The concept is correct. The formula is flawed, however.

High handicappers: Focus on hitting the ball solidly and fairly straight. learn to pitch up and two-putt every time with your wedges. Mid handicappers: Learn to hit your driver straighter and work on your short game and short putting. Low handicappers: work on your 10 to 15 footers and chipping and sand game. Scratch golfers: Don't be too conservative. Pick and choose when to take your chances. Play for easy 4's on the par-5's. (Don't play for 3's)

It is amazing how many golfers play(ed) hockey. The advantage we have in the south with our year-round good weather is probably counteracted by your hockey history. I played tennis and lacrosse in college and rowed crew.

Thanks, Crazy_Horst. I thought that there was a bigger difference between a once -in-a-generation player like Tiger woods and a scrub like me but your numbers prove it. Maybe my experience and mathematical intuition say otherwise because of the problem with the handicap formula that pushes plus handicappers toward 0.0 instead of the other way on high slope-rated courses. On a similar note, the .96 multiplier, the so called (by the USGA) "bonus for excellence" is handled correctly on both sides of scratch. It is a bonus for excellence since it aids lower handicappers in net events by moving their handicaps closer to 0.0 (than higher handicappers'); making it easier for them to compete in net score events. (Thus counteracting the advantage high handicappers have in net events since it is easier for high handicappers to win net events)

Thanks, iacas. We are rehashing a lot of what was in your link. Without going back on my promise of this morning in our earlier correspondence, let me say that in a recent publication, there is a mathematically-detailed analysis of the problems with the handicap formula that the USGA does not seem to understand. It was written three years ago by yours truly and made it to press one month ago. The golf world is buzzing.

Crazy_horst and Shred fit: Thanks. You are both right. Based on his average for the year, 67.79, he's a +10. Obviously, according to Crazy-Horst's good work, he played to only a +8.3 toward the end of the season. So he must have played to a +11 earlier in the year or he wouldn't have averaged 67.79. Crazy_Horst, could you tell us his average score for those last 20 rounds. please? My guess is that it is higher than 67.79. Thus after taking course rating into account) his handicap slipped a little higher at the end of the year. None of us plays to exactly the same handicap all year. Mine goes from about +4 to 0.0 As much as I love and respect Dave Pelz's opinion, I think he is going by their average score, not their best 10 of their last 20... Also. You have to consider that the course ratings are from the back tees in normal conditions. if tour pros played courses like that when they are not "tricked up" believe me they would take them APART. It would be embarassing for the course designers and the members. Plus (and you're going to consider this very esoteric) I found a flaw in the USGA handicap formula (its spelled out in my book) that pushes + handicaps toward 0.0, not away from it as it should on courses with high slope ratings. I got in a fight with the USGA over it.

Donkba: I think a scratch golfer would shoot in the 90's at Augusta (when it is set up for the Masters). It is a very long course but there isn't much rough. The problem is the severity of the green complexes. One of my friends who has played there 8 times told me that before you learn the greens , you might 3-putt more than half the holes because it is hard to get your first putt inside of 5 or 6 feet. After he has played there long enough to know his way around the greens, he would shoot in the mid 80's

Crazy_horst: Tiger's average is 67.79. Handicap is calculated using the ten best out of your last 20 scores. That will drop his average to 65 (because the computer will throw out the times he played bad and shot 71). Remember he is playing on courses rated in the 75 range from the back tees. The tournament tees and conditions are much more severe. His ten best of his last 20 are 10 strokes below the course ratings. Thus he has a +10 handicap. The other pros are in the +7 range. A +4 golfer can't make a living on the Nationwide Tour. (Nor could I, I am eager to point out. I'm barely making enough to survive on the Asian Senior Masters Tour (the Asian Tour's version of the Champion's Tour)) Golf Magazine underestimated Tiger's handicap by 2 strokes .