Prestonfield is...not a good golf course. Almost any other course within 45 minutes of Edinburgh would be better. Assuming you have a rental car and can leave the city easily enough, you should definitely head toward the linksland to the east - if you can't get on North Berwick or Muirfield, play one of the Gullane courses or Dunbar, or even the nine-hole Musselburgh Old Links (one of the earliest Open Championship venues) in and around the current horse racecourse. Or go north across the Firth of Forth to Lundin Links, which is probably the nearest good links course in Fife.I'm going to be in Edinburgh Aug 4 - 11. I'll be with a bunch of family, including a sort-of brother in law who is willing to play a round of golf with me. I'm not into bucket list golf and don't need to play the Old Course. I would however like a memorable round. I suggested North Berwick, but they seem to be uninterested in booking a twosome. My B-i-L (who lives in London) has booked a tee time at Prestonfield. Is that a mistake? Can I do better within 45 minutes of Edinburgh? If so, where?
The work-around solution I've presented for very occasional golfers is very rarely used, and I think there's a limit to the number of rounds you can self-report per year anyway. Yes, you could find a willing accomplice and sandbag your way to whatever handicap you want if you're really intent on a life of golfing crime, but it simply isn't the done thing. Because there's a culture of competition at most clubs here, golfers get used to playing by the rules (as best they understand them) and playing in at least three 18-hole competitions per year to keep their handicaps active. In the US, that culture doesn't exist, and golfers use mulligans or fail to observe the stroke-and-distance lost ball penalty (etc.) all the time. Or you'll be playing a nassau in which your opponent might concede you a putt and you never actually get the ball into the hole - and yet you still write a score on your card and submit that toward your handicap. Or you'll be playing alone some evening and hit some practice shots in addition to the ball you're ostensibly counting for your score. All of this fine for what it is - golf is meant to be enjoyed however you want to enjoy it - but it's a joke in terms of creating a level playing field for the purposes of identifying and maintaining accurate handicaps.What he meant - similar to my initial question - was what makes the U.K. System so much better? Conigliaro presented it was more accurate because 'only tournament rounds' are carded and used. So, like Hoya, this season I'm not a member anywhere and life has gotten in the way a bit, so I've only got about three rounds in, non tournament. How would I carry a cap in that scenario?
Conig's follow up only furthers my question as to why it's more reliable? If you in fact can submit non tournament scores, how is it any different other than the sample size? It's great that you need someone to sign, but how hard is that if you want to sandbag? How is it not still self reporting? Is there a rules official following every foursome? Cause if not, even if you physically turn your card in to someone at the end of your round for them to report it, it doesn't strike me as any more or less reliable.
Just as an FYI, the USGA handicap system has provisions for both of these. A Nassau where your opponent gives you a long putt should be scored exactly as match play rounds are scored. You are to take your "most likely" score. That can be based on the hole handicap relative to your index or what you legitimately think you get on the hole. Also, as of 2 years ago, you are not allowed to post any round in which you played alone.Or you'll be playing a nassau in which your opponent might concede you a putt and you never actually get the ball into the hole - and yet you still write a score on your card and submit that toward your handicap. Or you'll be playing alone some evening and hit some practice shots in addition to the ball you're ostensibly counting for your score.
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the US and UK systems. "Your most likely score" - really? If you are conceded a five-footer, what is more likely, that you'll make it or miss it? Impossible to tell. In the UK, you count YOUR SCORE. Period. (I didn't know that you can no longer post scores for rounds played by yourself, so thanks for that...although presumably that provision goes unenforced, right?)Just as an FYI, the USGA handicap system has provisions for both of these. A Nassau where your opponent gives you a long putt should be scored exactly as match play rounds are scored. You are to take your "most likely" score. That can be based on the hole handicap relative to your index or what you legitimately think you get on the hole. Also, as of 2 years ago, you are not allowed to post any round in which you played alone.
Well, I'd agree that the UK system cannot work in the US given the lack of competitive golf for all but the most serious American golfers. But the UK system makes it so that every golfer - no matter how talented and no matter how often he or she plays - can play competitive golf, which is the real beauty of it from my perspective. I don't think the US system is completely broken or anything, and for many golfers it does a good job of approximating your skill level in a way that facilitates competitive golf between golfers unequal skill. But it's really the combination of the handicap system and the competitive culture which go hand in hand to make the UK system so much more preferable to me.I think I understand the points about why the British handicap system would be superior for him as someone who plays a great deal of golf, very well, and often in serious competition. I appreciate that the culture seems to be more demanding of honesty in your score reporting, although it seems unrelated to the actual index methodology. I also think the US system is not so bad for the vast majority of us who are not so talented and who may not have so many opportunities - the idea that a stretch of "only"15 bad rounds could tank my handicap by 5 strokes or more is funny - that is probably two years of play for me.
I've never played St. Andrews in Hastings-on-Hudson, but here's Tom Doak's review of it in the first edition of his Confidential Guide to Golf Courses:Has anyone played St. Andrews? The one in westchester county, not the Open course. Supposedly nice but I didn't even know it existed until this week. Oldest course in us I think.
Any info would be helpful. Thx
That's based upon a visit in 1988 - sorry I don't have anything more recent than that, but I do tend to trust Doak's perspective on these things. He gives the course a rating of "3" on his 1-10 scale in which a "3" represents the average golf course in the world, the scale being purposefully weighted to be more granular in judging the world's greatest courses.Many of you know the history of this club, and of Nicklaus' intervention to "save" it, but architecturally the result is a dismal failure. The original course was quite cramped, and had only one hole worth seeing, a short par-4 with a 150-foot drop from tee to fairway, encouraging big hitters to see how far (and, as a result, how far off line) they could hit it. The revision screws up this hole by lengthening it so that no one is tempted to take a rip at the green, spacing the original 18 holes out into 15 newfangled but not particularly great ones, and adding three new holes on ground atop the hill next to the new condos. Clearly, judging from the ridiculous new par-5 11th, the scheme was more about condos than golf.
Thanks. I think. Lolol. Nicklaus has ruined many a courseI've never played St. Andrews in Hastings-on-Hudson, but here's Tom Doak's review of it in the first edition of his Confidential Guide to Golf Courses:
That's based upon a visit in 1988 - sorry I don't have anything more recent than that, but I do tend to trust Doak's perspective on these things. He gives the course a rating of "3" on his 1-10 scale in which a "3" represents the average golf course in the world, the scale being purposefully weighted to be more granular in judging the world's greatest courses.
So you don't play match play in the UK or you just don't post those rounds? Technically, your most likely score is based on your handicap. If you're a 5 and the hole is the 4 cap you're supposed to take a bogey unless it's near certain you'll make something else (like if you hit it in the water twice off the tee then a bogey isn't very likely). Also, is there no equitable stroke control? What would prevent me from from winning a match 3&2 and the posting two 11s to finish up the round and up my handicap?And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the US and UK systems. "Your most likely score" - really? If you are conceded a five-footer, what is more likely, that you'll make it or miss it? Impossible to tell. In the UK, you count YOUR SCORE. Period. (I didn't know that you can no longer post scores for rounds played by yourself, so thanks for that...although presumably that provision goes unenforced, right?)
Well, I'd agree that the UK system cannot work in the US given the lack of competitive golf for all but the most serious American golfers. But the UK system makes it so that every golfer - no matter how talented and no matter how often he or she plays - can play competitive golf, which is the real beauty of it from my perspective. I don't think the US system is completely broken or anything, and for many golfers it does a good job of approximating your skill level in a way that facilitates competitive golf between golfers unequal skill. But it's really the combination of the handicap system and the competitive culture which go hand in hand to make the UK system so much more preferable to me.
You don't post scores from matchplay rounds. I've learned since coming to the UK that matchplay is and should be an entirely different beast than strokeplay: in matchplay, you play against your opponent, not your opponent and the scorecard simultaneously. I might say after a matchplay round that I probably shot around X (or X over par), but I don't treat that as a legitimate score the way I treat the number I shoot in a competitive strokeplay round. (It's really quite liberating to not have to write a score on your card!)So you don't play match play in the UK or you just don't post those rounds? Technically, your most likely score is based on your handicap. If you're a 5 and the hole is the 4 cap you're supposed to take a bogey unless it's near certain you'll make something else (like if you hit it in the water twice off the tee then a bogey isn't very likely). Also, is there no equitable stroke control? What would prevent me from from winning a match 3&2 and the posting two 11s to finish up the round and up my handicap?
I'm not sure what you mean by "favors" in this context, but I think the UK system works equally well for high and low handicappers. Sounds like you won't be convinced, though.To me it sounds like a hybrid of systems would work really well in the US whereby handicaps would move slower and course conditions would be in play. To me, the US system greatly favors the high handicapper and it sounds like the UK system favors the lower.
I believe that was the rule until a few years ago. I agree, it seems to make more sense. I wonder why they changed it?I do prefer the UK version of ESC to the US version which I think needs to be addressed. As a 12 I am limited to a 7 which is probably right for a par 4 but is too high for a 3 and too low for a 5. Net double bogey seems like a better solution.
I'm not trying to argumentative. Sorry if it's coming off that. I'm legitimately fascinated by this stuff. As a low handicapper in the US I feel at a constant disadvantage when playing in tourneys, especially a match play that uses full handicaps, so any system that addresses that is good by me. What I meant by the UK system favoring the low handicap is that low handicappers are going to be much more consistent so their index won't change much anyway whereas the high handicappers will have a bigger range so the slower changes are less likely to reflect their current game. Now, that changes with knowing the ESC rules over there. With a cap of double bogey that's going to eliminate fast movement of high caps anyway. On the other hand, it means it will be hard to be a truly high handicap with a max possible score of 108.Re: equitable stroke control, the highest score you're allowed to count toward your handicap on any given hole in the UK system is a net double bogey.
I'm not sure what you mean by "favors" in this context, but I think the UK system works equally well for high and low handicappers. Sounds like you won't be convinced, though.
The highest score is "net double bogey", only someone playing to a 0 on a course would have a max possible score of 108.I'm not trying to argumentative. Sorry if it's coming off that. I'm legitimately fascinated by this stuff. As a low handicapper in the US I feel at a constant disadvantage when playing in tourneys, especially a match play that uses full handicaps, so any system that addresses that is good by me. What I meant by the UK system favoring the low handicap is that low handicappers are going to be much more consistent so their index won't change much anyway whereas the high handicappers will have a bigger range so the slower changes are less likely to reflect their current game. Now, that changes with knowing the ESC rules over there. With a cap of double bogey that's going to eliminate fast movement of high caps anyway. On the other hand, it means it will be hard to be a truly high handicap with a max possible score of 108.
D'oh! I missed the "net" part. That makes a lot more sense.The highest score is "net double bogey", only someone playing to a 0 on a course would have a max possible score of 108.
Don't worry - no offense assumed or taken.I'm not trying to argumentative. Sorry if it's coming off that.
I've not been a double-digit handicapper since my early teens, so I can't speak from experience, but I do think it's much easier for a high handicapper to come down than it is to go up...which I think represents the idea that one's handicap is supposed to be as much about potential as it is about ability in both systems. I was talking with one of my playing partners today (current handicap = 3.8) about handicaps, and he said he was single digits all his life until he more or less stopped playing for about five years when he was in his 30s. When he came back to the game and joined a new club, they didn't accept his assurance that he was a single-digit player and made him submit three new cards to get a new handicap, and he played so poorly in those rounds he suddenly found himself playing off 16. Well, in his first competition at his new club, he won by 8 shots (net), and in his second competition, he won by 6...and after those two rounds he was suddenly back to 6 again. Not exactly the best way to make friends at a new club, I'd have thought, but it does show how quickly your handicap can drop if you find some form.What I meant by the UK system favoring the low handicap is that low handicappers are going to be much more consistent so their index won't change much anyway whereas the high handicappers will have a bigger range so the slower changes are less likely to reflect their current game. Now, that changes with knowing the ESC rules over there. With a cap of double bogey that's going to eliminate fast movement of high caps anyway.
I meant to say...I played Half Moon Bay many moons ago - one of my college teammates was a member there - and while I enjoyed it, I do agree with Tom Doak's assessment. QFT:Just stayed at the Ritz-Carlton at Half Moon Bay for my companies national sales meeting this week. Flew in early on Monday and played the Ocean Course. Unbelievable. The view on holes 16-18 was unbelievable. Winds were whipping which crippled my score but the course was immaculate.
There is a lot to be said, though, for a) enjoying a different kind of golf course with different kinds of views to what you're used to, and b) any golf course that saves its most memorable hole for the very end. Half Moon Bay is a course where you have 4-5 hours to let your sense of anticipation build and build, and when you finally get to the climax, it really does deliver.Strictly a one-hole golf course: the par-4 18th, playing south along a cliff overlooking the Pacific, being one of the better holes in California. The other 17 holes are mostly Hamburger Helper.
www.rockbottomgolf.com/bags-carts/stand-bags/titleist-golf-2016-lightweight-stand-bag/I'm in the market for a new carry bag after my old one ripped within a year, so I have a $100 credit on rockbottomgolf.com. Does anyone have any suggestions that I could pick up on their website? Looking at the Ogio silencer bag, but I'm a little weary of the extra weight and the gimmicky-ness of it. My necessities are durability, strap comfort, and (hopefully) a 14-way club divider. Price isn't really an issue. I'd love a Sun Mountain since I've heard nothing but great things about their bags, but I can't find anything that doesn't have better than a 4-way divider.
I'm between this and the Callaway Fusion 14:www.rockbottomgolf.com/bags-carts/stand-bags/titleist-golf-2016-lightweight-stand-bag/
I'm a big fan of the Titleist bags. A month ago I bought last year's StaDry model from Rock Bottom and love it. Looks like they are out of them now, it's a shame, great bag.
I got to hit the g400 yesterday at the best fitting location I know. Full, outdoor range, trackman and they'll let you sit there and hit balls all day. Tried with a few different shafts and well, that's the best driver I've ever hit. For some context, I was 9/10 hungover, wearing work clothes and it was hot as shit and I had no glove on. This was in Portland at sea level. Heal hits were going 298. Had multiple drives in the 325 range. It just goes and it goes straight. The spin rates are incredible. I was getting 1800-2200 on well struck balls and only up around 4k on poorly struck ones. Just an amazing club and it took all of my power to walk out without spending $500. If I was home, I probably would have bought it.From what I understand all other things being equal every driver is about the same distance on a perfect strike. What you're looking for is something that fits the best and is the most forgiving.
I hit the TMs well but I don't find them any better than my G30 with the tour shaft. The TMs seem a little longer on mishits but also go farther off line than the G/G30 too. So its a trade off IMO. The new G400 feels different though. It seems to have the power all across the face of the TM while also being even more forgiving than the previous Ping drivers. I think its a bit of a breakthrough -- at least as much of one that there can be legally. It's the best driver I've hit and idk, it's hard to describe but it just feels different. You have to try it yourself.
I can verify that CP is a gracious host and a scratch golfer (or very nearly so). I played poorly, not breaking 100. Nonetheless, he could not have been nicer to me or to my friend, who struggled mightily, having played only occasionally in the last 10 years.Hey, I played golf today with the starter of this thread! @Koufax was very good company, and also the first SoSHer I've met in person, which is nice. Lovely day for it at Dunbar as well; apart from the sun and lack of wind, the surf was really high and quite noisy (in a very pleasant way) all the way round. Good times!
That's a great bag. It's all I've used for the last many, many years. $35 is about as good as you could have ever hoped. Great score.Rock Bottom had the 2016 Sun Mountain 3.5 on closeout so combined with my store credit I was able to snag it for $34.99. It doesn't have the fancy dividers that the Titleist or Callaway bags have, but it was kind of impossible to pass up a Sun Mountain for that price when the Titleist or Callaway bag would run me like $150 even with the credit.
That is exactly what I'm looking for. At the end of the day, durability and comfort matter more than bells and whistles. I walk 100% of the time so I was always a little skeptical of the 5+ pound hybrid cart/stand bags once I fooled around with them at Dick's this weekend.The sun mountain bag that I just retired lasted me every bit of 10 years and I play A LOT of golf.
Looks like the hangover is still kickin. What head-shaft combo was working best? Not sure what you're swinging now, but you gotta hit it back to back with your current driver before you pull the trigger.I got to hit the g400 yesterday at the best fitting location I know. Full, outdoor range, trackman and they'll let you sit there and hit balls all day. Tried with a few different shafts and well, that's the best driver I've ever hit. For some context, I was 9/10 hungover, wearing work clothes and it was hot as shit and I had no glove on. This was in Portland at sea level. Heal hits were going 298. Had multiple drives in the 325 range. It just goes and it goes straight. The spin rates are incredible. I was getting 1800-2200 on well struck balls and only up around 4k on poorly struck ones. Just an amazing club and it took all of my power to walk out without spending $500. If I was home, I probably would have bought it.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using SoSH mobile app
Well, that was a new hangover that lead to thatLooks like the hangover is still kickin. What head-shaft combo was working best? Not sure what you're swinging now, but you gotta hit it back to back with your current driver before you pull the trigger.
Sounds like this place in Portland has you spoiledWell, that was a new hangover that lead to that
I hit just the 9.5 head, not the LS one. For shafts I hit it with the Alta CB55 x-flex (63g) first, then actually took a bunch of swings with the Ping Tour 65 Regular flex shaft (had 2 buddies with me who hit regular flex) and the hit some more with the Ping Tour 75 x-flex. The Tour 75 were the best results as far as a combination of consistent distant, direction, spin and launch angle. The R flex was the most inconsistent for direction and spin but the longest when caught correctly (to be expected since it flexes more and is lighter) while the Alta felt great but performance overall was behind the Ping. Normally, I'd be totally on board with going back with my current driver and doing side by side tests as well as changing the order I hit the combinations since it's hard to know from cold to warmed up whether the swings are better or the combo is better. The issue I have is, no such place exists in Denver that I know of. I was in Portland for work and I've bought clubs at this place before. I would spend half of my life at a place like that it if existed in Denver. So, I'm torn as to what to do. I'll probably just stick with what I have now, but man, I'm so very tempted to order one.
It sure has. I found a place with Trackman about an hour from my house but they don't sell clubs and charge $120 for a fitting. I have no idea what they have in house for shafts and heads but I may just have to do that.Sounds like this place in Portland has you spoiled