What Golf Ball Do You Use?

[kenny999]

The par for a course is of no significance. It's how many over/under you shoot that matters. I actually think it is harder to score on the lower par courses as there are more par 3's. Your scoring is very good.

Length is by far the biggest factor when a course is rated/sloped. Difficulty added by obstacles and similar counts as well, but length is the most important parameter. This means a long course is rated more difficult than a short course. If my information is correct, Phunaka is not rated, but please feel free to reveal any such information. I would be VERY surprised if Phunaka is rated as anything but a VERY easy golf course, simply because it is VERY short.

They have changed it, because I dont see any Par 5s? Maybe it's been lengthened as well, I wouldn't know.

http://www.phuketgol...e/scorecard.htm

Edited September 12, 2011 by kenny999

[kenny999]

The par for a course is of no significance. It's how many over/under you shoot that matters. I actually think it is harder to score on the lower par courses as there are more par 3's. Your scoring is very good.

Length is by far the biggest factor when a course is rated/sloped. Difficulty added by obstacles and similar counts as well, but length is the most important parameter. This means a long course is rated more difficult than a short course. If my information is correct, Phunaka is not rated, but please feel free to reveal any such information. I would be VERY surprised if Phunaka is rated as anything but a VERY easy golf course, simply because it is VERY short.

They have changed it, because I dont see any Par 5s? Maybe it's been lengthened as well, I wouldn't know.

http://www.phuketgol...e/scorecard.htm

Edited September 12, 2011 by kenny999

[kenny999]

The par for a course is of no significance. It's how many over/under you shoot that matters. I actually think it is harder to score on the lower par courses as there are more par 3's. Your scoring is very good.

Length is by far the biggest factor when a course is rated/sloped. Difficulty added by obstacles and similar counts as well, but length is the most important parameter. This means a long course is rated more difficult than a short course. If my information is correct, Phunaka is not rated, but please feel free to reveal any such information. I would be VERY surprised if Phunaka is rated as anything but a VERY easy golf course, simply because it is VERY short.

They have changed it, because I dont see any Par 5s? Maybe it's been lengthened as well, I wouldn't know.

http://www.phuketgol...e/scorecard.htm

Edited September 12, 2011 by kenny999

[kenny999]

The par for a course is of no significance. It's how many over/under you shoot that matters. I actually think it is harder to score on the lower par courses as there are more par 3's. Your scoring is very good.

Length is by far the biggest factor when a course is rated/sloped. Difficulty added by obstacles and similar counts as well, but length is the most important parameter. This means a long course is rated more difficult than a short course. If my information is correct, Phunaka is not rated, but please feel free to reveal any such information. I would be VERY surprised if Phunaka is rated as anything but a VERY easy golf course, simply because it is VERY short.

They have changed it, because I dont see any Par 5s? Maybe it's been lengthened as well, I wouldn't know.

http://www.phuketgol...e/scorecard.htm

Edited September 12, 2011 by kenny999

[kenny999]

The par for a course is of no significance. It's how many over/under you shoot that matters. I actually think it is harder to score on the lower par courses as there are more par 3's. Your scoring is very good.

Length is by far the biggest factor when a course is rated/sloped. Difficulty added by obstacles and similar counts as well, but length is the most important parameter. This means a long course is rated more difficult than a short course. If my information is correct, Phunaka is not rated, but please feel free to reveal any such information. I would be VERY surprised if Phunaka is rated as anything but a VERY easy golf course, simply because it is VERY short.

They have changed it, because I dont see any Par 5s? Maybe it's been lengthened as well, I wouldn't know.

http://www.phuketgol...e/scorecard.htm

Edited September 12, 2011 by kenny999

[kenny999]

The par for a course is of no significance. It's how many over/under you shoot that matters. I actually think it is harder to score on the lower par courses as there are more par 3's. Your scoring is very good.

Length is by far the biggest factor when a course is rated/sloped. Difficulty added by obstacles and similar counts as well, but length is the most important parameter. This means a long course is rated more difficult than a short course. If my information is correct, Phunaka is not rated, but please feel free to reveal any such information. I would be VERY surprised if Phunaka is rated as anything but a VERY easy golf course, simply because it is VERY short.

They have changed it, because I dont see any Par 5s? Maybe it's been lengthened as well, I wouldn't know.

http://www.phuketgol...e/scorecard.htm

Edited September 12, 2011 by kenny999

[kenny999]

The par for a course is of no significance. It's how many over/under you shoot that matters. I actually think it is harder to score on the lower par courses as there are more par 3's. Your scoring is very good.

Length is by far the biggest factor when a course is rated/sloped. Difficulty added by obstacles and similar counts as well, but length is the most important parameter. This means a long course is rated more difficult than a short course. If my information is correct, Phunaka is not rated, but please feel free to reveal any such information. I would be VERY surprised if Phunaka is rated as anything but a VERY easy golf course, simply because it is VERY short.

They have changed it, because I dont see any Par 5s? Maybe it's been lengthened as well, I wouldn't know.

http://www.phuketgol...e/scorecard.htm

The 8th tee is a par 4, there is now the option to play new tee's which are a par 5 it is not shown on the score card, they are building some sort of house right next to the 8th fairway hence I think the need to move this tee eventually to the new par 5 tee..

Bloody computer went mad!!

And maybe a short course is considered easy by some, at the end of the day you still have to play well to post a low score..

Edited September 12, 2011 by kenny999

[Melpomene]

In case you missed it, here's the answer one more time:

I would say there are two definitions of a hacker. One is my own definition of someone who isn't a professional golfer, or at least not good enough to shoot under par regularly at the home course.

Then there's the "bullshit walks"- hacker who claims to have a degree of knowledge, but in reality doesn't have a freakin' clue what he's talking about - you usually finds these hackers at the driving range giving advice to others.

So when I was playing off of a four handicap, you would have classified me as a "hacker" because I could not regularly break par. I always thought my game was rather respectable but I only broke 70 a few times. Guess I was a hacker too.

What's your handicap again??? Or do we classify you in the "bullshit walks" category.

Yes, my definition of a hacker is someone who doesn't break par regularly at the home course, so I guess that makes you a hacker according to that definition.

Well, based upon your definition and the scores they seem to shoot when they get a start, these Asian Tour Pros you play with would certainly fit into the hacker category.

[chuckd]

In case you missed it, here's the answer one more time:

I would say there are two definitions of a hacker. One is my own definition of someone who isn't a professional golfer, or at least not good enough to shoot under par regularly at the home course.

Then there's the "bullshit walks"- hacker who claims to have a degree of knowledge, but in reality doesn't have a freakin' clue what he's talking about - you usually finds these hackers at the driving range giving advice to others.

So when I was playing off of a four handicap, you would have classified me as a "hacker" because I could not regularly break par. I always thought my game was rather respectable but I only broke 70 a few times. Guess I was a hacker too.

What's your handicap again??? Or do we classify you in the "bullshit walks" category.

Yes, my definition of a hacker is someone who doesn't break par regularly at the home course, so I guess that makes you a hacker according to that definition.

Then we are to presume you have a plus handicap. Strange that you aren't proud enough of a handicap like that to announce it. If I had ever gotten to a plus I would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

Strange also that it doesn't seem to bother you to boast about playing with touring pros and wannabe pros but can't, somehow, publish your handicap. You taking them on all those Nassaus and afraid they will read this forum and catch on?

Either you are very modest or.........

Edited September 12, 2011 by chuckd

[Forethat]

In case you missed it, here's the answer one more time:

I would say there are two definitions of a hacker. One is my own definition of someone who isn't a professional golfer, or at least not good enough to shoot under par regularly at the home course.

Then there's the "bullshit walks"- hacker who claims to have a degree of knowledge, but in reality doesn't have a freakin' clue what he's talking about - you usually finds these hackers at the driving range giving advice to others.

So when I was playing off of a four handicap, you would have classified me as a "hacker" because I could not regularly break par. I always thought my game was rather respectable but I only broke 70 a few times. Guess I was a hacker too.

What's your handicap again??? Or do we classify you in the "bullshit walks" category.

Yes, my definition of a hacker is someone who doesn't break par regularly at the home course, so I guess that makes you a hacker according to that definition.

Well, based upon your definition and the scores they seem to shoot when they get a start, these Asian Tour Pros you play with would certainly fit into the hacker category.

Playing a course that has been set up for a tour event is something completely different compared to playing your home course. No comparison.

[Forethat]

I do have to say I'm absolutely flabbergasted over that fact that a lot of posters on here struggle with the idea that thay cant hit a golf ball. Incredible, to say the least. It's as if their entire universe has collapsed. And some of them tend to think that my handicap has something to do with this.

[Melpomene]

Playing a course that has been set up for a tour event is something completely different compared to playing your home course. No comparison.

True, but would still expect sub 85, they're not exactly playing in the US Open

[Forethat]

Then we are to presume you have a plus handicap.

Really!? It'd be interesting to get an inside view of how you came to that conclusion.

[Forethat]

Playing a course that has been set up for a tour event is something completely different compared to playing your home course. No comparison.

True, but would still expect sub 85, they're not exactly playing in the US Open

I have had this discussion many times.

The first thing you should know is that there are (my estimate) roughly 20.000 young players in each generation with talent and ability (in Europe).

2000 of these make it to the national pro tours.

200 of them make it to one of the smaller international pro tours in Europe or Asia.

50 of them make it to Challenge or Asian Tour.

At this point they pretty much know whether they have what it takes to make it on the tour. For this reason, a couple drop off and start making some money on distant tours, like the South American Tour (ok money to be had if you pick the events where only <deleted> players attend).

I know a lot of former "talents" who went on to become referees, caddies and similar. Some of them are freelancers making yardage books for the tour events. Some of them are club makers on the tour.

The thing is that there's not that much difference in playing standard when these players tee off at the home course. In general, they followed the same pattern and development in playing standard:

14 Yrs

Hcp: 2 or better

Score: Typically under par at the home course during club tournament play. Occasionally, 5-6 under par with the mates from the tips.

Results: Top 3 in most regional tournaments

15 Yrs

Hcp: Scratch or better

Score: Takes the home course to pieces when playing with the friends. Sometimes 63-64. Every now and then these scores are achieved during tournaments away from home.

Results: Top 3 in most national tournaments.

16 Yrs

Hcp: Scratch or + one or two

Score: Average tournament score is now under par..

Results: Top 3 in a couple of national tournaments.

17-18 Yrs

Hcp: + at least a couple of shots

Score: Regularly shoots under par all rounds during tournament play. Have the ability to do this during international play as well. Very few disaster rounds.

Results: Plays a couple of Challenge or even European Tour events as SI or WC and sometimes manage to put two decent rounds together and are close to making the cut.

The difference, is in the mental abilities. They were all able to shoot pretty much the same score at the home course, but when it mattered on the bigger tours they fell apart. I have seen this happen sooo many times. Out of the 20.000 players there's 10 who will go on and make it on the European Tour (again, my estimate). So trust me, there is a huge difference playing with your friends compared to playing in an event where your entire existence is at stake. I know several players who shoot 65 more or less every other round but when it comes to Asian Tour events they shoot 77. Nothing uncommon with that, trust me when I say there are thousands and thousands of players out there with the ability to shoot under par. And there's really not that much difference between his/hers ability compared to the players on the tours.

[coolhandjoe]

I forgot to mention earlier that sometimes when there is a ground frost or a light covering of snow i may be inclined to use an orange or yellow ball.

[Wallaby]

I have had this discussion many times.

The first thing you should know is that there are (my estimate) roughly 20.000 young players in each generation with talent and ability (in Europe).

2000 of these make it to the national pro tours.

200 of them make it to one of the smaller international pro tours in Europe or Asia.

50 of them make it to Challenge or Asian Tour.

At this point they pretty much know whether they have what it takes to make it on the tour. For this reason, a couple drop off and start making some money on distant tours, like the South American Tour (ok money to be had if you pick the events where only <deleted> players attend).

I know a lot of former "talents" who went on to become referees, caddies and similar. Some of them are freelancers making yardage books for the tour events. Some of them are club makers on the tour.

The thing is that there's not that much difference in playing standard when these players tee off at the home course. In general, they followed the same pattern and development in playing standard:

14 Yrs

Hcp: 2 or better

Score: Typically under par at the home course during club tournament play. Occasionally, 5-6 under par with the mates from the tips.

Results: Top 3 in most regional tournaments

15 Yrs

Hcp: Scratch or better

Score: Takes the home course to pieces when playing with the friends. Sometimes 63-64. Every now and then these scores are achieved during tournaments away from home.

Results: Top 3 in most national tournaments.

16 Yrs

Hcp: Scratch or + one or two

Score: Average tournament score is now under par..

Results: Top 3 in a couple of national tournaments.

17-18 Yrs

Hcp: + at least a couple of shots

Score: Regularly shoots under par all rounds during tournament play. Have the ability to do this during international play as well. Very few disaster rounds.

Results: Plays a couple of Challenge or even European Tour events as SI or WC and sometimes manage to put two decent rounds together and are close to making the cut.

The difference, is in the mental abilities. They were all able to shoot pretty much the same score at the home course, but when it mattered on the bigger tours they fell apart. I have seen this happen sooo many times. Out of the 20.000 players there's 10 who will go on and make it on the European Tour (again, my estimate). So trust me, there is a huge difference playing with your friends compared to playing in an event where your entire existence is at stake. I know several players who shoot 65 more or less every other round but when it comes to Asian Tour events they shoot 77. Nothing uncommon with that, trust me when I say there are thousands and thousands of players out there with the ability to shoot under par. And there's really not that much difference between his/hers ability compared to the players on the tours.

Jeez, you certainly mix with golfers that are the exception, not the norm.

I'm now worried I'm getting coached by a hacker, even though he coaches John Senden and Karrie Webb amongst others. My mate who made the quarter final of the US amateur, finished 4th in the Aus open, 2nd then 3rd in the NZ open is also a hacker as he only breaks par at his home course about 1 in 8 games. All those hackers like Wayne Grady, Greg Norman, Peter Senior, Tom Watson. I'd love to play with those hackers, though I have played with Grady quite ofen years ago.

I honestly do not know anyone, even pros, who shoot sub par on their home course every other game. The lowest handicap I have seen is an acquaintance, not a mate, and his got to +3. Even he only broke par one in half a dozen games.

The numbers you are speaking of 63-64 every now and again for a 15 year old? Are you talking about a par 3 course?

All I can say is that the golfers where you have played are light years ahead of the anyone in oz and we must be slinking into an abyss. So tell me, where do all your ideas come from, they are certainly 'out there'. Are you a tour groupie or a wannabe?

[kenny999]

Then we are to presume you have a plus handicap.

Really!? It'd be interesting to get an inside view of how you came to that conclusion.

It will now seem obvious to you that posters are waiting to hear what your supposed handicap is, I agree that if you have a very low handicap you should be proud to mention it, golf is a very difficult game to play and I would shout it from the roof tops if I was that good, because you are so secretive and quote "it's personal information" brings in to doubt any thing you say!! be proud and boast how good you are at this difficult game, maybe then people will start to believe what you write!!

I was over the moon when I scored my 4 over par on my local short course, I love this game and I wanted to tell every one how well I did. I consider myself to be maybe a 10 handicap to me that is some thing to boast about!!

Edited September 13, 2011 by kenny999

[Wallaby]

Then we are to presume you have a plus handicap.

Really!? It'd be interesting to get an inside view of how you came to that conclusion.

It will now seem obvious to you that posters are waiting to hear what your supposed handicap is, I agree that if you have a very low handicap you should be proud to mention it, golf is a very difficult game to play and I would shout it from the roof tops if I was that good, because you are so secretive and quote "it's personal information" brings in to doubt any thing you say!! be proud and boast how good you are at this difficult game, maybe then people will start to believe what you write!!

I think the average golf handicap of the USGA for men is about 15 or 16. Anything better than that and you are above average and would definitely not be considered a hacker. Forethat must be happy that his idea of a hacker is certainly in a tiny minority and only those with a superiority complex.

My handicap before I turned pro was 1 (0.8). My lowest handicap after I went back to amateur was 1 (0.6). I would break par probably 1 in every dozen games though I think the handicap system may have changed now to make it easier to get a lower handicap. We never had the 'slope' system and the handicaps were on course ratings, not against par.

Golf is to be enjoyed and I'm much happier playing with guys that enjoy it, no matter what they shoot. One of my mates regularly shoots between 90 and 100, I enjoy his company and it's a laugh. Yes he's a hacker, but I'd much rather play with someone like him than someone who thinks he knows everything.

I can think of one guy I would rather not play with.

[kenny999]

Then we are to presume you have a plus handicap.

Really!? It'd be interesting to get an inside view of how you came to that conclusion.

It will now seem obvious to you that posters are waiting to hear what your supposed handicap is, I agree that if you have a very low handicap you should be proud to mention it, golf is a very difficult game to play and I would shout it from the roof tops if I was that good, because you are so secretive and quote "it's personal information" brings in to doubt any thing you say!! be proud and boast how good you are at this difficult game, maybe then people will start to believe what you write!!

I think the average golf handicap of the USGA for men is about 15 or 16. Anything better than that and you are above average and would definitely not be considered a hacker. Forethat must be happy that his idea of a hacker is certainly in a tiny minority and only those with a superiority complex.

My handicap before I turned pro was 1 (0.8). My lowest handicap after I went back to amateur was 1 (0.6). I would break par probably 1 in every dozen games though I think the handicap system may have changed now to make it easier to get a lower handicap. We never had the 'slope' system and the handicaps were on course ratings, not against par.

Golf is to be enjoyed and I'm much happier playing with guys that enjoy it, no matter what they shoot. One of my mates regularly shoots between 90 and 100, I enjoy his company and it's a laugh. Yes he's a hacker, but I'd much rather play with someone like him than someone who thinks he knows everything.

I can think of one guy I would rather not play with.

If it's not me then I agree with you lol

[Forethat]

I'm now worried I'm getting coached by a hacker, even though he coaches John Senden and Karrie Webb amongst others.

Actually, I think Ian was even better at the age of 15 compared to my suggested standard above.

[Forethat]

All I can say is that the golfers where you have played are light years ahead of the anyone in oz and we must be slinking into an abyss. So tell me, where do all your ideas come from, they are certainly 'out there'.

I would say the level of play suggested above for talents who eventually reach the tour fits the majority of tour players today. Obviously there are exceptions, late bloomers, but the majority follows the pattern above.

[Wallaby]

I'm now worried I'm getting coached by a hacker, even though he coaches John Senden and Karrie Webb amongst others.

Actually, I think Ian was even better at the age of 15 compared to my suggested standard above.

I hate to tell you he aint 15 anymore. I also doubt he was on a plus handicap as they were very rare due to the handicap system. Back in his/my day you only had to be off 4 or less to try and become pro. I'll ask him in a couple of weeks. But interesting you call him 'Ian'. I don't know many that refer to him by first name.

Greg Norman's coach was also a hacker. Charlie didn't exactly burn it up.

Since you will not discuss your golfing past I don't think there is much point discussing the number of errors in your thinking. I'm sure you won't mind, I'm only a hacker.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Wallaby

[Wallaby]

All I can say is that the golfers where you have played are light years ahead of the anyone in oz and we must be slinking into an abyss. So tell me, where do all your ideas come from, they are certainly 'out there'.

I would say the level of play suggested above for talents who eventually reach the tour fits the majority of tour players today. Obviously there are exceptions, late bloomers, but the majority follows the pattern above.

I don't think I will change your mind no matter how wrong you are.

[kenny999]

Great thread this now over 80 posts, off to play my very easy course tomorrow with 2 hackers, always a great laugh and a few beers after the game, I have given the link to this forum to my Nephew(PGA teaching Pro in the UK, hope he makes it on here, maybe we will get to the truth because it is out there!!!

[kenny999]

All I can say is that the golfers where you have played are light years ahead of the anyone in oz and we must be slinking into an abyss. So tell me, where do all your ideas come from, they are certainly 'out there'.

I would say the level of play suggested above for talents who eventually reach the tour fits the majority of tour players today. Obviously there are exceptions, late bloomers, but the majority follows the pattern above.

I don't think I will change your mind no matter how wrong you are.

No you will not change his mind, and we must now believe he is a troller!! a bloody good one I might add!!

[Forethat]

The numbers you are speaking of 63-64 every now and again for a 15 year old? Are you talking about a par 3 course?

No I am speaking about young talents who eventually make it to the tour but fail to succeed. You asked me how these players can shoot 63-64 on a round with the mates, but shoot 85 in a tour event.

[Forethat]

All I can say is that the golfers where you have played are light years ahead of the anyone in oz and we must be slinking into an abyss. So tell me, where do all your ideas come from, they are certainly 'out there'.

I would say the level of play suggested above for talents who eventually reach the tour fits the majority of tour players today. Obviously there are exceptions, late bloomers, but the majority follows the pattern above.

I don't think I will change your mind no matter how wrong you are.

I am not wrong.

[Forethat]

I hate to tell you he aint 15 anymore. I also doubt he was on a plus handicap as they were very rare due to the handicap system. Back in his/my day you only had to be off 4 or less to try and become pro. I'll ask him in a couple of weeks. But interesting you call him 'Ian'. I don't know many that refer to him by first name.

He was of +1 at 15

[Forethat]

Back in his/my day you only had to be off 4 or less to try and become pro.

You're wrong again. There has never been a handicap limit to become a professional golfer. Most professional associations have a limit for memberships, but that's a different thing. Edited September 13, 2011 by Forethat

[Wallaby]

The numbers you are speaking of 63-64 every now and again for a 15 year old? Are you talking about a par 3 course?

No I am speaking about young talents who eventually make it to the tour but fail to succeed. You asked me how these players can shoot 63-64 on a round with the mates, but shoot 85 in a tour event.

No, I asked no such thing. I think someone else may have asked about the 85 in the tour event.

I've never met a 15 year old that can do that every now and again but as I said, I'm not in the esteemed company you keep.