M2R

I THINK I understand this and if the statement had stopped at simply costs you strokes or followed with over time , or in the end , or in the long run , or ... I would have been 100% on board . But my brain exploded on the three words no matter what because it seemed there were very unique and specific instances where it would not be no matter what . However I also realize that this is just one of my quirks so no issues on my part as I understand now that it was not meant the way I interpreted it, maybe, possibly, .

Quote: Originally Posted by RFKFREAK I only pay at public courses so maybe it's something that happens at private courses or maybe I've not been privy to it, but if I were a customer, I'd be really upset if they did that. If I'm using the round for HC purposes, and am letting people through, then really, people should just calm down, IMO. Quote: Originally Posted by rkim291968 I saw this happened once. A group in a tournament was asked to skip a hole and they obliged. I sure hope they used ESC scoring system to fill in their score for the skipped hole. This is my view on skipping holes (predicated on playing under the USGA system), sometimes the rules help a player in ridiculous ways and sometimes they stupidly punish an otherwise blameless player (but in some cases this subsequently gets corrected). But they are just stupid rules and should be followed like a stupid monkey. I view the USGA handicapping system in the same way as the rules, it is the players obligation to know it and adhere to it as best they can. I would be upset skipping holes from a playing perspective but not from a posting perspective because I am just a stupid monkey posting in accordance to the system in place for me to do so. I dislike it when players pick and chose on what rules to follow and which to ignore and in some ways it saddens me even more when players abuse the handicap system by picking which scores they feel should be posted or not. Just to be clear that is not what is being discussed here, well it is not my intent or meaning anyway. It is hard to imagine anyone championing cheaters or intentional sandbaggers. Quote: USGA Handicap System Manual Section 5 SCORES 5-1. Acceptability of Scores a. Scores To Post To post a 9-hole score, the player must play 7 to 12 holes, and at least 7 holes must be played in accordance with the principle of the Rules of Golf. To post an 18-hole score, the player must play at least 13 holes in accordance with the principles of the Rules of Golf. (See Decisions 5-1a/3 through 5-1a/5 .) 5-2. Posting Scores b. Posting a Score When a Complete Round is not Played If 13 or more holes are played, the player must post an 18-hole score. If 7 to 12 holes are played, the player must post a nine-hole score. In either case, scores for unplayed holes must be recorded as par plus any handicap strokes that the player is entitled to receive on the unplayed holes. (See Section 4-2 and 5-1a .)

I do not see how it costs a stroke no matter what. If the hole is playing to 3.7 strokes and you make 4 it does not matter what transpired during playing the hole, you did not lose a shot. If you made 5 then you did lose a shot somehow. You might lose shot value opportunities but that seems like playing the what if game, if I did not have that penalty that would have been a birdie, I should not have missed that two foot putt to saved par, etc. I understand that GIR is a key stat but I do not see it as black and white, nGIR might be MUCH better than GIR in certain situations. Or missing the green short might be the best possible miss, for example I would prefer on the fringe just short if the hole cut close to that over a 35 foot putt from the back of the green.

I do not think it is a totally horrible idea. At my club they ask people twice to get back in position and inform them the second time that if they do not comply they will be ordered to skip ahead to get back in position. So potentially it might cost a hole or more of play by not staying in position. Probably alienates customers but maybe not the target customer the course wants to cater to anyway, not sure about how that works out. It used to bother me when people said nice shot to a shot that was a bad shot but a good result. Like a skulled wedge that skitters and bobbles to withing two feet of the hole. I did not hate it and it does not bother me at all now.

Yes unless you have glaring weaknesses in other areas you should spend 65% of your time on developing (and subsequently charting) consistent power in your full swing shots. The driver should have first, second, and third priority in that process, actually I just made that part up but the drive is the very important... even it it is with a five iron . Power is king and accuracy is queen... however the data also shows that consistent power is usually in close relationship to accuracy. Or if you prefer, among better golfers longer hitters also tend to be straighter hitters. Or you know just go with what @turtleback said, that is probably a better idea all around.

My post was based on playing a combo set of Cleveland CG1 and CG2 irons for few seasons. As far as turf interaction, in Summer when my local goat track had way more hard baked bare earth than grass the CG2 would mostly bounce off leaving a shiny spot or maybe a small dent on the hard earth. It was painful as I tended to take moderately large divots. The CG1 were not a dream to hit off that but still managed to scrape out a quarter inch deep divot of sorts and were tolerable. Which is why I wrote ´If a player is particularly sensitive to and/or cares´. As you posted in the Are you a picker or a digger thread that you ´take nice thin dollar bill divots´ it is understandable that your opinion is different than mine but I do not think that makes mine ´wrong´. Different players, different swings, different conditions, different opinions. As for heavy rough that is a bit more tricky, you wrote rough where I wrote heavy rough. Up to some point out of what I would call rough I experienced no difference but when it turned into what I call heavy rough I experienced a marked difference between the CG1 7 iron and the CG2 6 iron. However it was also my observation at that time, right or wrong, that for certain players it would make no difference, which is why I wrote ´depending on your preferences and stroke dynamics´. I have never had a club turn over in thick grass so I do not have anything to say about that. I have seen it happen to other players a bit though so I think it still just comes down to different players, different swings, possibly different conditions, different opinions. My reason for posting was to introduce the idea that there may be differences that may be important to various types of players to varying degrees (besides cosmetics). So thanks for this info. I have read this about low to high but have not experienced it myself so did not list it. My experience is is zero difference, so if it is less than I think it is less than zero.

No PRO: Turf interaction. A blurb from Titleist CB and MB pages, ´enhanced feel through the turf for the highly skilled golfer´. Implying some association between highly skilled golfers and feel through the turf I guess and why I list it here. If a player is particularly sensitive to and/or cares about turf interaction, it might be easier to find something to suit their preference in a previous era set of clubs than what is offered on the more common mass produced modern clubs. PRO: Heavy rough. Related to above and depending on your preferences and stroke dynamics, certain head design features tend to enhance performance out of heavy rough. In broad terms small heads, thin soles, and sharp edges. Apart from that my personal quirk is that I do not think the term blades has any use or place in the discussion of modern clubs unless it is used in a generic way to describe the flat striking part of an iron head in the same way blade is used relative to knives regardless of if it is a table, skinning, combat, or bread knife. Modern clubs might employ a variety of design features directed at the spectrum from game improvement to performance. Today we can have clubs that visually look like muscle back designs but actually employ mostly game improvement features and probably should be called GI irons but are called blade simply because of the way they look. Or the opposite, a CB style primarily geared toward highly skilled golfers.

I agree that if all the card lists is par 5 then it is played as a par 5 (even if that is known to be a ladies par rating). I have played in forward tournaments several times where it was stipulated that the par and handicap hole designation for the ladies would be used just so everyone was on the same page. @Jeremie Boop yea the chart wasn't directed at you just someone earlier asked if length guidelines existed and I put in in the same post, sorry for the confusion. I'm not saying it is or isn't, all I'm saying is that in my experience for tees that short with both men and women ratings it is common to carry 5/4 designations (and even 6/5 sometimes). Far Corner comes to mind off the top of my head, notice that from the scorecard picture here it is not possible to tell which tees are rated how. I would be very interested to see an example of a hole 360 yards long with official USGA men and women ratings that I can look up in the database rated 5 for both. I know it could exist and would be interested to see one since I obviously haven't played every tee on every course. Plus that isn't consistent with my understanding of how courses are rated so it would be interesting from that angle as well.

While that is possible I think it is more likely the tees were only rated for women and if they had both women and men ratings the par would appear on the scorecard as 5/4, at least that is fairly common here when forward tees on holes this short have both ratings. In any case regarding distances (my emphasis added):

I was but I also thought LSW was about the mental game since I tend to think any decision that can impact my score is about the mental game even to the point of deciding what workout program to follow or not since it is a decision that can potentially impact my scoring. I understand that probably is not the meaning of mental game in general though, actually I don't know what that definition might be.

Sorta depends on this statement. Are these meant to be distance designations or actual spots where the ball will be hit to. I think you meant the first so: Driver and hope to miss the fairway because playing uphill to a green I can't see running away and shallow just doesn't sound fun and the further away the less fun since even fairly well struck shots at that elevation change don't stop like normal and run out a bit. Also missing right or left with driver is OK compared to 3W which looks to run off into bad places with misses left and right. We have a hole very much like this and from an aerial view the bunkers just short of the green would look benign but they are 10 feet below the green surface and in no way do I want to be in them so idk.

@iacas now I'm confused, I thought the reason for getting LSW is to help with this mental game stuff ... I agree with that but I'm still really interested in getting my hands on LSW to see what it has to say.

Quote: Originally Posted by mvmac 4K is just for the irons, I think it's because they actually put some gold in the cavity. Only once saw one sort of like that which got left behind on the side of the green. I remember the medallion was a little different more like a half sun burst or cog? ala MG700. Returned it to the owner and they were not even concerned it was missing, very casual about the whole thing. Speaking of MG700 ... Quote: The standard production MG700 is a 2-Star grade (MSRP $370/club) up to the ultra-elaborate 5-Star grade ( MSRP $4,605.00/club ) featuring Pt1000 Platinum, 24k gold plating, medallions, hosel rings and ion plated shaft. Holy cow that is $4600 per club if I'm reading that correctly? Anyway on their website they give a warning about grey market and counterfeit clubs but I suppose that could just be standard disclaimer stuff.

Pretty much captures it exactly except driver would fail my "confidence" test so it would be 4W or 5W depending on which was in the bag. Would be interesting if you pick up some things from this thread you might want to try for yourself and then report back the results. I know I often have trouble holes and devise what I think is a good plan but then the course schools me on the detail I missed, frustrating!

Thought this was interesting, R&A; The truth about driving distance Quote: We would expect the average driving distance for male golfers with handicaps between scratch and 5 to be 240 yards. Consider Kevin Stadler in 2013, average drive 289.8 yards, drives over 300 yards 33.11%, drives over 320 yards 7.14%, longest listed drive 360 yards. So just picking a number at random (but conservative I think) say Kevin needs the potential to drive the ball 320 to be able to generate a 290 average. The higher the index the more the gap should be between potential and average and considering Kevin probably isn't crap at ball striking, by the time the indexes get into the 5, 10, 15 range the gap between potential and average should start to get pretty staggering. I know some responses have been along the lines of well it is not a real average as much as a typical drive but even so I sort of suspect some of those are being overestimated.

I would tend to hit the longest club I have confidence in trying to get as close to the green as possible. The FW bunker doesn't look penal enough*, excepting getting unlucky with the lie, to make me thing the risk of trying to drive over it isn't worth the risk. But all that depends on how deep and fluffy it is. And the greenside bunkers are going to be a problem regardless so better to potentially (not likely for me though) bounce a drive into them in 1 stroke than plug a spinning wedge shot into them in 2 strokes. Anyway at my level a flubbed drive still may, by accident, end up as well as a layup shot I intended. *In the Google Earth photo but the hole description says deep FW bunker and the OP clearly considers it penal so idk. Roughly 320 back 290 front on the scorecard.

I went with C because if I can get it past the little tree on the left and short of the bunker on the right I can hit fairly far offline left or right and not be hurt by it. Then aim third at the 255 dot with a club that will get near 270 distance dot because the further it travels the more it opens up and the majority of my shots come up short so potentially in the center of the green where I want to be anyway. All assuming it is not dead to go long and the green isn't too elevated, neither of which I can really tell from the photo.

1. yes it makes sense that they can make that local rule. Appendix I – Local Rules; Conditions of the Competition Part A Local Rules 5. Obstructions c. Roads and Paths (i) Declaring artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths to be integral parts of the course, or (ii) Providing relief of the type afforded under Rule 24-2b from roads and paths not having artificial surfaces and sides if they could unfairly affect play.

Yea I was just pointing out that some people will have to join out of state associations to do that.

I might have unknowingly played most of my golf under USRGA rules. Just that under USRGA rule #2 the rules we agree on are strict USGA rules then we decide how the sides will be chosen and how the match will be scored (for example one net and one gross on par 4s, two net on par 5s, and one gross on par 3s). But when the active season ends and scores can't be posted, USGA rules occasionally get modified as well.

Slightly confusing, for example if Chris had happened to live in Montana and tried to join the MSGA to get a GHIN number. I only found this out by accident because a friend called and said, "hey I just took up golf three months ago and I'm a 9 index now". So I go to the GHIN website to have a look at their scoring record, nothing. You can check for yourself, go to GHIN.com and look up everyone with the last name Davis in Montana then try here . Long story short you generally only get a GHIN number if your association uses the GHIN service for their member clubs. In my case : "The NHGA provides each member club with installation, training and tech support needed to run the GHIN Handicap Program ." If a persons association doesn't use GHIN I'm not sure it makes sense to join an out of state/local area association just to get a GHIN number. @Gibber here in New England all the public courses that I have looked into offer handicap service for a nominal fee like @David in FL said $30-$45 a season. But like @Dave2512 said I think it is good to look into "special" memberships clubs might offer (for example memberships with 10 prepaid rounds at highly discounted rates) in case something especially interesting to your specific needs is offered.

Yea that was my experience too. I generally like playing in the wind because it tells more about the state of my game than playing in calm. But only up to a point because if the wind is too strong the act of taking a backswing makes the triangle formed by my forearms act like hoisting a sail, even worse when wearing a rain or wind shell. I went out one day when the peak wind speed was recorded at 77 mph just because I was curious what would happen. I whiffed many balls from that effect of being knocked off balance. Even when putting there was a chance of whiffing. But I was surprised that on a solidly struck shot the wind didn't seem to effect the shot as much as I had expected. But overall it wasn't really golfing more like goofing.

I guess it is possible to buy replica balls like this from McIntyre Golf Company . Would like to try hickory golf some day, even had a guy offer the use of his set but I'm too afraid of breaking or damaging them.

Found this enlightening especially the part starting around 2:30. Probably heard the same thing a hundred times but for some reason this bit fired a neuron, no rhyme or reason why things sometimes click when they do.

There are objective standards for pace of play (or could be). Unveiled in 1993, the USGA Pace Rating System is a service for golf courses that seek to identify how long it should take four golfers to play the course on a busy day. For most courses, the USGA Pace Rating has turned out to be just under four hours. Tougher and longer courses may rate over four hours. Participating regional golf associations are using the USGA Pace Rating software program to calculate time pars for their member clubs. To have your course pace rated, call your regional golf association. One of the more interesting findings was that the playing pace for a group of four in golf carts with the freedom to roam the fairways is no faster than for golfers walking with caddies or carrying their own bags (except at a course with long walks between greens and tees). Restricting carts to cart paths adds 13 percent to time pars. Allow carts on fairways and the pace of play matches that of walking golfers.