Forums

Meh

• nivlac 2,188 Posts

  Thu, Feb 12 2009 4:07 PM

  Tips only help when they're right. ;-)

  Thanks NASAGolfer for pointing out my blunder.

  Sorry about that :(

• TitleistPro 94 Posts

  Thu, Feb 12 2009 4:20 PM

  Ok where you my math teacher in Kansas?

  LOL, nice tutorage nivlac

   

  God Bless, 

  TP

• NASAgolfer 96 Posts

  Thu, Feb 12 2009 6:58 PM

  Good post as usual nivlac.  But before someone posts back here stating that they did the math on their scores and the average WGT gives is not correct, just remember that the scores are weighted. 
  
  From the FAQ’s:
   Your Average Score is the weighted average of your ten best out of your last fourteen stroke play scores (Practice rounds are not included). Your most recent scores are weighted more heavily to ensure there is no "sandbagging".

• nivlac 2,188 Posts

  Thu, Feb 12 2009 7:28 PM

  Doh.  Well, that kinda renders this thread useless then.  Blah.  Not sure where my brain was there.

   

• NASAgolfer 96 Posts

  Fri, Feb 13 2009 6:29 AM

  Oh you deleted it... you should have kept it in there.  Although we would never be able to verify our WGT averages without knowing the weighting factors, it was still a good explanation of why the average doesn't move as much as we sometimes expect.

• tomab 523 Posts

  Fri, Feb 13 2009 6:49 AM

   You don't happen to have the weight rates for the 10 counting rounds out of the 14?

  Tom.

• nivlac 2,188 Posts

  Fri, Feb 13 2009 9:04 AM

  I do appreciate it NG, but if what you need isn't "what you need"  then I'll probably just end up confusing more people in the long run with it.

  I also started thinking that it's possible they don't want us to be able to figure it out (to prevent sandbagging).  If we know the formula then we can manipulate our averages and that might defeat the purpose of the weight in the first place. Ya know?

  If Alex is allowed tell us what the weighting system is, then I'll re-write it.  It's probably best left as a gray area.

• NASAgolfer 96 Posts

  Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:13 AM

  I agree. I'm OK with the average that WGT is using and I don't need/want to know the weighting placed on each round.
  
  It will be interesting in the future when the back nine of Kiawah (as well as new courses) open up for play.  Why do I say that?  As in real golf, each nine will probably have its own degree of difficulty (slope/rating).  So if player A always plays the same nine (whatever that might be) and player B plays every course out there, the AVERAGE would have no meaning in ranking different golfers unless all of the nines are exactly the same par and degree of difficulty.  That would be highly unlikely.  There would be no point in comparing the AVERAGE of player A to the AVERAGE of player B.  You can't compare apples to oranges.  The AVERAGE would just be a measure for a golfer's own individual stats.
  
  I guess that's why the USGA invented the handicap index.

• tibbets 1,043 Posts

  Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:36 AM

   I agree NASA, and have been thinking the same thing about the 9 vs.18 hole ranking thing.  Hopefully we don't have to wait much longer to find out.