Forums

Exceedingly forgiving averages.

• ForrestLeigh 264 Posts

  Mon, Mar 28 2011 6:15 AM

  I made the mistake of not reading the forums, not realising that if I hit good rounds too early (playing a lot at St Andrews) I would 'progress' to quickly - now I'm a master (in name only) who appears to have an average of 65.6 but actually over 18 I generally manage to get 69-70 on a good day.

  Maybe I got carried away and enjoyed the game too much, but now I feel I've been penalised for it as I need quicker/better clubs and haven't played enough to have learnt the intricacies of each green, the vagrancies of the meter and more important how to 'ding' that swing

• GGO2 27 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 7:21 AM

  As I said : "As it stands, averages are artificially low, and create all manner of absurdities."

  I, for one, keep seeing my average plummet dangerously in the 61 range despite a majority of rounds in the mid sixties, or not much lower. This is clearly insane. Again, as long as WGT refuses to create a Raptures-like master driver capable of handling legend tees, I want nothing to do with this higher tier and the fast meter clubs it now calls for. I'm here to have a good challenging fun, not to add frustration upon frustration to my life, which is hard enough as it is.

   

   

• bearclaw27 553 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 9:39 AM

  GGO2:

  As I said : "As it stands, averages are artificially low, and create all manner of absurdities."

  I, for one, keep seeing my average plummet dangerously in the 61 range despite a majority of rounds in the mid sixties, or not much lower. This is clearly insane. Again, as long as WGT refuses to create a Raptures-like master driver capable of handling legend tees, I want nothing to do with this higher tier and the fast meter clubs it now calls for. I'm here to have a good challenging fun, not to add frustration upon frustration to my life, which is hard enough as it is.

   

   

  This is rather confusing...On 1 hand, you are complaining that your average is artificially low..On the other hand, you are asking WGT to create an Easy-to-hit legend driver (which will only serve to bring your average even lower..)

  Well I would love to custom design my own clubs, balls, and avi's too, and have WGT build them for me... But I ain't Tiger, and WGT aint' Nike, so I won't hold my breath..

  Just sayin....

  --bear

   

   

• PeterHopper 1,315 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 9:59 AM

  I think averages should be based on all scores made on stroke play tournaments. Inc CC, RGs and ranked. I don't like the best scores factor.

   

  I know this was to discourage quitters. However if you quit in a mult-player stroke game you should have a small pen adjustment to your ranking applied if you are over par. Basically that over par score is added to your average.

   

  If the quitting is due to technical problems then suck it up. There is a forum to whine on.

  The average could be affected a little in the courses played as well. A slight premium included for playing the harder two courses. A slow adjustment for always playing STA front 9.

   

• TarheelsRule 5,603 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 10:09 AM

  The way the USGA does handicaps eliminates the worst 10 of your 20 most recent scores.  Obviuosly then means that your handicap is something that you play to half of the time.  There is no real way to penalize players who quit that makes much sense to me in terms of scoring average, frankly who cares if they have an average that is 5 or 6 strokes better than they really are.

  To me not posting is sort of like playing golf and giving putts and taking mulligans.  You shoot 75 and brag about it and then when you play, putt off and only hit once, you shoot 75 and can't brag since you already did it.

• bearclaw27 553 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 1:39 PM

  TarheelsRule:

  The way the USGA does handicaps eliminates the worst 10 of your 20 most recent scores. 

  Also, don't 4get that the USGA factors in Course rating and Slope when computing handicaps..

  Take note ..

  Kiawah 77.2/144

  St. Andrews 72.1/129

  BPB 76.8/148

  Oakmont 77.5 /147

  Imagine what the averages would be if those factors were included in wgt's calculations..?

  --bear

• GGO2 27 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 1:57 PM

  There is no contradiction. The main reason why the artificially low average is problematic is this : tour masters with lesser reflexes -- who positively cannot handle the current fast meter, unforgiving big hitters that are needed to cope with legend tees -- may inappropriately be bumped up to this higher tier, due to this artificially low average (which only requires that you achieve the odd excellent score, while the many mediocre ones are ignored). My personal example is a case in point, and I am not alone.

  In short, as long as there is no decent slow meter, forgiving master driver, suited to tour masters with lesser reflexes, the artificially low average system will be a dreadful problem. Create this driver (not the most powerful, say 270y, but slow meter and forgiving), and those tour masters with lesser reflexes won't complain if indeed they end up in the legend tier. 

• nowhammies 288 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 2:43 PM

  SGTBilko:

  But to continue to beat a dead horse, averages are less important than your playing percentages such as sand, scrambling, 1 putt and 2 putt just to name a few.

  Sgt Bilko I understand your point that the stats are more important but how is that going to change the fact that a Tour Master with horrible stats has to compete against Tour Masters with incredible stats?  We are classified by our averages which I have figured out exactly how they compute these averages and it's not a good way to reflect a person's ability.  Just like real golf slope and rating should be a factor in determining the scores toward your average.  A 64 at St Andrews isn't near as impressive as 64 at Oakmont no matter what the conditions are. but they are treated the same when figuring your average.  The low scores in you average stay there for too long and do not reflect your current playing ability.  High scores you can basically throw out the window, there is a certain amount of scores that are used to figure your average, X amount of your lowest scores determines your average. So let's say out of X amount of low scores used for your average, the highest score included in that group of low scores is a 68, if you shoot 68 or higher it has absolutely 0 affect on your average.  Now if you shoot a 67 or lower it will knock out that 68 until there aren't any 68's in the group of low scores then the 67's will be eliminated every time you shoot anything lower.  The problem I have is that once u have posted X amount of ranked rounds, your average can only go down.  Maybe a score can only be used for your average for a certain period of time, I haven't played in 1 tier long enough to figure out if or when that will happen but I do know I can determine my avg with a calculator and my score log I keep since I was curious as to how WGT computed the averages. 

• navigater 1,319 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 2:49 PM

  played a ledgend one day.checked his score hisl. not one game under36-72

• nowhammies 288 Posts

  Tue, Mar 29 2011 2:51 PM

  I tracked all 72 ranked rounds I played as a master and I correctly figured out my WGT average after every round, and yes I did it without looking at what WGT came up with before I did the math.  I just recently became a tour master and I'm currently tracking those scores and so far it's figured exactly the same as it was when I was a master, I haven yet to reach that certain number of rounds where it starts only counting your lowest rounds.