The Golf Engineer

Here’s a new tool to dial in your less-than-full shots: the Wedge Matrix. - Use your preferred system (%/fraction/clock) - Create images like the one below - Dial in #'s at the range, store in your yardage book Wedge Matrix & Gap Visualizer are now on thegolfengineer.com

@ButlerCabin1894 Who hurt you Biff? 😄 I respectfully disagree. I’ve seen dozens of fits where mini drivers are a great 3w replacement. A sacrifice off the ground, but if your primary need is hitting an accurate less-than-driver off the tee, they are awesome.

Playing a mini driver with an index >3 is performative Minis are modern day snake oil from OEMs. Another product to squeeze every last dollar from unsuspecting Covidians

6 months ago, this reply to @nikitabier was how I started. I've posted every day. This silly app has built incredible connections, inspired me to build things I never would have thought of, and I have a blast trying to make something amusing or valuable for you every day. I'm humbled by the support. For those who've arrived recently, I'll restate why I'm here: 1. 1v1 concierge DMs to help you fit yourself, make the right purchase, or prep for a fitting. 2. Make tools that assist #1. 3. Add something to golf 𝕏 culture I'm cooking up more for the next 6 months! Thanks for being here. 🤝

@timmmess @fnf2017 Guys if I code a GHIN alternative that fixes 9holes and gives you matchup wager odds are you with me 😄

@fnf2017 @engineeringolf The USGAs job is to take the fun out of everything they see, aggressively market the “solution”, and find ways for regular people to pay for all of it.

Time for my annual rant 😠😤😡🤬🤬🤬 Assuming *every time* (every SINGLE time) I post a decent 9 hole score that I'm going to 🥣💩 on a hypothetical second 9 is stupid. I get the regressing to the norm idea... But it's not normal to fall on your face EVERY SINGLE TIME. Enjoy the rest of the year, I'll be back with this next spring.

@scottyc4me yessir send my way!

@engineeringolf I am on my clubs handicap committee and have a fun (to me at least lol) story about this exact topic. Would be happy to DM about it if you’re interested!

Hole-By-Hole Handicaps. That post yesterday stirred up some conversation, so let's expand. Designed to be your all-inclusive, bookmarkable reference for this topic. I will include links to sources in the comments. Things that didn't change: 1. The hole handicaps are up to the discretion of the handicap committee at each course. 2. It is recommended that the front 9 be odd numbers, and back be even. This spreads strokes evenly, making 18-hole matches more equitable. Can be flipped if back is deemed considerably harder. Pre-2020: 3. Prior to the introduction of the World Handicap System in 2020, it was recommended that hole handicaps be determined by the average score difference per hole between groups of low handicap & high handicap players, collected from actual scores. There is nuance to this, linked in comments. Post-2020: 4. Today, there is an updated handicapping recommendation for Stroke Index Allocation. It introduces key differences: -First, holes are ranked by each hole's difficulty to par using Course Rating data (obstacles and length, not actual scores) -Then, ratings are shuffled to spread strokes evenly and make match play most equitable -It is recommended that the lowest stroke index (1 or 2) be assigned to the middle 3 of each 9. -Apply HC 3 or 4 in the first or last 3 holes -Avoid low HC (6 or less) on consecutive holes. These changes aren't automatic. Even though there is a new recommendation, your club may not have been re-rated. They may have re-rated because the course changed, but preferred their existing allocation method. Many clubs appear to have the same allocations as they did in 2019. I'd love to hear from folks on handicap committees in the comments. So, I'll refine the statement in my original post: This is your reminder that the #1 handicap hole is not necessarily the hardest. #18 is not necessarily the easiest. They are correlated, but subject to a variety of recommendations and shuffling intended to make match play as equitable as possible, ultimately at your committee's discretion.

@Duke_113 I personally agree, I think it made more sense. And I suspect many clubs feel this way and simply kept their allocation regardless of the new recommendation.

@engineeringolf The pre- 2020 system IMO was better for match play. But people were so very confused by it. Today, there's a much stronger correlation between index and difficulty, which is what most people assumed was the case

Here’s the whole picture:

This is your gentle reminder that the #1 handicap hole is not a difficulty ranking.

The current Stroke Index Allocation explainer page: usga.org/content/usga/h… And the nuance in the rulebook: usga.org/handicapping/r…

The archived USGA page about Allocation of Handicap Strokes, pre-2020. Ask Grok to organize it to make it legible: usga.org/custom-search-… And a page that is still live (wtf?) on the USGA site explaining the pre-2020 method: usga.org/handicapping/g…

@timmmess @YipStrickler I think a key point here is, yes there are new recommendations, but what percent of courses have actually implemented them? And even under the new allocations, #1 hole isn’t always the hardest to par. Therefore my initial tweet is true and nobody can be upset. 😄

@engineeringolf @YipStrickler The USGA is horrible they make the worst most crummy expensive app ever. Then they cater to the country club elite because those places want to play PGAT events on 6300 yd courses. The pros won’t pay for smaller drivers or balls. We will.

This 👇…isn’t true anymore. 🤦‍♂️ My home club just changed all of their stroke hole allocations a few years ago. Apparently, the USGA must have switched the policy just months after we completed the process. I’ll be calling my PGA Pro to tell him we need new scorecards printed.

@YipStrickler Seems like this is the fine print we're talking about. I'd still like to know how many courses are adhering to the old system. 90%? usga.org/handicapping/r…

@engineeringolf My course did the “old” method just 2 or 3 years ago. 🤦‍♂️

@timmmess @YipStrickler It's always us little guys who take the heat, and not the USGA and their website that is riddled with contradictions. Stick with us, Tim!

@engineeringolf @YipStrickler I’m just flabbergasted that this type of confusion has happened. Next thing you know there will be a prominent golf website saying mallet putters work better than blade putters. I thought all of you anonymous guys on X were correct all of the time!

Would love to hear from some folks who have gone through this new allocation. Today has sparked so many questions. 😄 Is it fair to assume that most courses have not adopted this new method? Do most committees even know about this? Could the USGA be any worse at educating the golfing public?

@engineeringolf Apparently it’s ultimately up to the Handicap Committee at each course as well.

@MichaelRMason @Tyler_Covers Didn’t expect this to blow up. Might need to make a follow-up based on new info. Thanks 🤝

@engineeringolf @Tyler_Covers That's fair and that needs to be updated! "Wrong" wasn't accurate on my part. It's up to the club to make these decisions locally and they can use the old methodology as well. Just making the point that the recommendation has changed to a stroke play focused process as of 2020.

@MichaelRMason @Tyler_Covers Thank you for sharing this, Michael. You’re making me dig deeper. Maybe the tweet should have been that it’s unfortunate that the USGA has conflicting information on its site. usga.org/handicapping/g…

@Tyler_Covers @engineeringolf

@JohnJak60830357 @atlsportsball I added the top comment

@engineeringolf @atlsportsball Yeah but you won’t say what the difference is. So just loser trying to get engagement

@atlsportsball No, I think it’s an important distinction and a widely propagated misconception.

@engineeringolf It’s a test to see if we can farm engagement based on semantics