Either I don't understand what you mean, or you need to get out more. There is no way you can divide golfers into handicap ranges and expect any kind of consistency in talent in any one of those ranges.
Save the cheek... I didn't invite it and your button-pressing has long been tiresome...As for the fact of that sarcastic preamble, I'll state that I have some 4000 rounds and 37 years under my belt, serving, observing and playing the game for every conceivable type of golfer under every competitive and recreational mode of play devised... from US Open sectionals to the Lions and Lambs 9-holers. I've been out plenty, numbnuts
For those besides GB, who desire an honest clarification I intended a "rough, subjective" guide corresponding to the scoring of those groups...
Pros (+5/6) - to 2s break course par, but don't always...
3- 9 sometimes threaten par, often break 80, but don't always...
10-18 are pleased when the break 80 and feel rotten when they go over 90.
18+ are often defined by breaking 90.
My witness reveals that within those very rough subjective groups, the players in the group end up with the same degree of miss, and what segregates them within their group is how proficient and versatile their short game is.
I'm not fully down with the tenets of MMs original post intentions regarding "Short Par 5s," but I understand his point, that the short game (including putting) reveals that "extra-quality" in a player on a given day, round, era, and is something to consider in course design theory and application.
cheers vk
I'm sorry if I sound cheeky to you. If I were to say the same thing to you in person, I'm pretty sure you would find no offense to it as I believe the context of a good natured discussion would override the perception of cheekiness.
I continually fail to temper my posts in the manner necessary to account for the lack of a person to person meeting where more comes in to play. With some people I just want to be blunt, but that would not be the case with you.
But, forgive me if I say that I find your statements on this matter to be contrary to mathematics, statistics, and logic.
You are assigning arbitrary division points to the gradation scale of the handicap system that segregates players into groups that would not correspond to real life as there is a great diverse set of skills that go into determining the numbers in the handicap system. As was seen on another thread, given the Steady Eddys and Wild Willys of the handicap system, you seem to me to be ignoring at a minimum of 20% of all golfers in your "rough subjective" analysis.
My point about Variance seems to be something that they though about, but never got around to dealing with:
8. Future Research: The Player Variability Problem[/size]The HRT has shown that 80% of all bogey golfers fit the model within one stroke. However, two distinct types of golfers fall outside of these limits. These types have been labeled "Steady Eddy" and "Wild Willy." Steady Eddy represents 12% of all golfers and he is a very straight, but short ball striker who has an outstanding short game. When taken from a short course to a long course, his score increase8 greater than the model would show, thus he is under-handicapped at a high Slope course. Conversely, Wild Willy is a long-hitter, but is inaccurate. Representing 8% of bogey golfers, this type can be over- handicapped on a long open course, but under-handicapped on any very tight and punitive course.
Furthermore, it seems to me that simply the vast dispersion of age and physical abilities of golfers would render your arbitrary assignment of partitions to the handicap system somewhat meaningless.
Finally, as I posted earlier, Dr. Brodie has shown that the "strokes gained" statistic he originated shows more strokes are lost in the long game than in the short game by high handicappers.