432 replies to this topic
#51
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 20:13:41
 Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:06:02, said:
chuckd, on 2011-09-12 18:55:39, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 15:23:04, said:
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.
Me thinks you have never played golf and all your information comes from a book in front of you, nothing wrong in that after all we don't know who you are, but it is very strange indeed that you never ever mention your handicap, still it is very sensitive information which if fell in to the wrong hands well it could be disastrous!!
Posted 2011-09-12 20:24:54
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 17:57:14, said:
I have always classed a hacker as someone who can't break 90 on a regular basis. Never ever would I or anyone I know call someone a hacker if they can't short under or near par at their home course. They are not hackers, they are excellent golfers and most pros would fall into this group.
I regularly play with Asian tour players AND some Pro's who aren't even exempt for all events, and they regularly shoot mid 60's. Last time I played with one of these players (two weeks ago) he had 9 birdies, one eagle and one bogey.
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 17:57:14, said:
As for the ball, well it does have a lot to do with it but so do the weapons you use. The metal driver is a lot more forgiving than the old woods I used to use. The metal woods have made it easier for old gits like me to keep up with the young bucks a bit better in the distance stakes. The shafts in the clubs are just as much, if not more of assistance than the ball.
Incorrect. There are plenty of stats available if you're interested. It's the ball. Period.
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 17:57:14, said:
If you are playing just for social enjoyment, does it really matter? Just get out there then have a few beers.
This is probably the best advice I've heard. To many hackers put too much into the game and act as if they have a future on the tour. They don't.
Edited by Forethat, 2011-09-12 20:25:23.
Posted 2011-09-12 20:28:22
kenny999, on 2011-09-12 20:13:41, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:06:02, said:
chuckd, on 2011-09-12 18:55:39, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 15:23:04, said:
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.
Me thinks you have never played golf and all your information comes from a book in front of you, nothing wrong in that after all we don't know who you are, but it is very strange indeed that you never ever mention your handicap, still it is very sensitive information which if fell in to the wrong hands well it could be disastrous!!
You are welcome to play a round of golf with me to find out for yourself. I have invited you before.
#54
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 20:35:58
Quote You are welcome to play a round of golf with me to find out for yourself. I have invited you before.
You invited me for a game? Sorry I can't remember that... of course I would have a game with some one who is of a much higher standard than myself that is how you learn... are you in Phuket?
Posted 2011-09-12 20:45:23
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by Forethat, 2011-09-12 20:46:47.
#56
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 20:58:55
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:16:07.
#57
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 20:59:45
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:16:24.
#58
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:00:19
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:16:41.
#59
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:01:20
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:17:03.
#60
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:02:16
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:15:41.
#61
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:02:40
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:15:22.
#62
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:03:05
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:15:02.
#63
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:04:16
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:14:31.
#64
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:04:54
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:17:32.
#65
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:05:32
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:17:50.
#66
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:06:35
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:18:11.
#67
kenny999
Posted 2011-09-12 21:07:13
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:45:23, said:
Wallaby, on 2011-09-12 18:00:29, said:
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 by kenny999, 2011-09-12 21:20:14.
Posted 2011-09-12 21:43:15
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:06:02, said:
chuckd, on 2011-09-12 18:55:39, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 15:23:04, said:
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.
Posted 2011-09-12 21:55:12
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:06:02, said:
chuckd, on 2011-09-12 18:55:39, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 15:23:04, said:
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 by chuckd, 2011-09-12 21:57:43.
Posted 2011-09-12 21:55:48
Melpomene, on 2011-09-12 21:43:15, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 20:06:02, said:
chuckd, on 2011-09-12 18:55:39, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 15:23:04, said:
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. 
Posted 2011-09-12 22:00:39
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.
Posted 2011-09-12 22:01:40
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 21:55:48, said:
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 
Posted 2011-09-12 22:07:34
chuckd, on 2011-09-12 21:55:12, said:
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.
Posted 2011-09-12 22:39:34
Melpomene, on 2011-09-12 22:01:40, said:
Forethat, on 2011-09-12 21:55:48, said:
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 shite 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.
Posted 2011-09-13 03:37:26
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.
|
Sponsored By:
|
0
