re: " . . .The point of posting my own calculated stats was to show the difference in wgt's score avg and my actual average. My actual average includes easy tee rounds and uneven lie rounds, just like wgt includes in their score avg."
what our "actual average" includes is not necessarily scores from "easy tee rounds and uneven rounds." Depending upon where we are in our score history, scores above our average are often not recorded at all.
Difficulty here for me is your meaning of "actual" as it would require the person calculating to establish criteria for what is actual? Currently WGT's criteria for par 3's for example, and par 5 scores are not included. Should should wgt "actual" average include these scores?
There is a great arguement that CC "easy tee" scores should not be averaged, yet I and many argue that even those scores are indicitave of a player's skills -- if nothing else, at least demonstrative of his or her short game-- AND such short games can be more difficult (with our bigger clubs) forcing players to calculate in ways that they are unaccustomed to-- requiring, in some situations, decision-making of high complexity as angles and altittudes combined with usual club distances force us to play in ways we are not necessarily practiced with-- especially if we fast-tracked our way to the legend tier by the "forfeit" strategey. Anyone can test this for themselves -- just set up a skins game in practice mode from the "easy tees" for four legends and note that the scores are not all that great unless they are skilled at those distances.
And so like me, there are many who would rather regard a player's "actual average" as only those scores resulting from games meeting certain criteria. So far as players of WGT, we have that criteria for WGT games. And therefore "averages" per se, are maybe not actual by some people's definition, but instead based upon a definition we all agree to play under according to WGT calculations-- BECAUSE, WGT provides the only agreement so far by which most are happy (or, by which the fewest are complaining) about the calculations.
On a personal note, let me close by sharing what I find laughable, or amusing, are those people who engage in so much effort and anguish to lower their average, but engage in minimal, if any, effort towards developing skills. People quit their way to a lower average by forfeiting every game in which their score exceeds what is necessary to tier up. That is just crazy. Everyone I know who has done that and has made legend has dropped out of the game soon after reaching that tier-- usually within a few months.
The fact is that if you do not have the skills for playing low scores from the Champion Tees, BEFORE tiering up to Legend, you were likely motivated more by the prestige of a title than you were motivated by the prestige of having the skills. The title is not as difficult to achieve as it may seem, but actually playing like a legend after a person gets the title is too often quite rare. Specifically, we need to score an average below a certain number to promote to the Legend Tier; But after we get to that tier continuing to play at that average score (or, not too high above that nuimber) is the only objective evidence or criteria that we have to define if a player is playing like a "Legend" --as far as I know. Is there any other objective evidence that we have for determining if a player is playing like a legend-- other than if their average is legend-level-- say consistently 60 to 63 from the Champion Tees?
-gs