I always thought (without actually giving it much thought) the rating/slope for each tee was designed so that pretty much any level of player playing the same game relative to his potential would end up with approximately the same index for that game from any set of tees. Recent experiments have made me question this assumption and I would like to know your opinions on this.

Basically, I'm realizing that my handicap would be lower if I played from the front tees as opposed to playing from the tips as I usually do. Here are the net scores I need to play to obtain an index of approximately 9.7 (which is where I was at before beginning my experiment) on courses of different (rounded out) length and level of difficulty, always from the tips:

Course: Length Rating/Slope, Net score (Index)
Bethpage Black: 7500y 76.6/144, 89 (9.7)
Parcours de l'Irlande: 7200y 75.6/136, 87 (9.5)
Royal Laurentien: 6800y 71.8/126, 83 (9.9)
Piedmont: 6300y 70.0/115, 80 (9.8 )

The problem -- or at least what I perceive as being one -- is that it is much easier for me to score 80 on the 6300-yard course than it is for me to shoot 89 from the tips at Bethpage Black, and that my handicap would thus be lower if I played from more forward tees. A delta of 9 shots between the 6300-yard local course and the 7500-yard Bethpage Black doesn't seem to represent reality well (not my reality at least).

Just for the heck of it, I played my last 4 games from forward tees and have obtained 3 out of 4 <80 net scores, which I'd never done before in the 2 years since I've taken up golf again after a 22-year break. My handicap also went down from 9.7 to 8.6 in a week.

Why is this?

Thanks in advance,

IMO opinion the tees should be handicap based ie 15 and greater forward tees 15 - 5 middle and 5 and below the tips... would make the game faster and more enjoyable if you hit the ball a mile and are still above a 15 work on your short game before moving back. one problem would be what you are stating handicaps would vary depending on where you play from. but isn't the handicap system designed to take that into the formula?

Your results are very interesting. I vary play from forwards to middles depending on the course, weather, and what I'm feeling on a given day. I have actually found that I score almost the same from the middles, which has had the effect of lowering my index. I think that relationship between your handicap and the tees that you play from have a bigger relationship to how a course sets up to your game from the tees that you choose.

And as for the suggestions of various handicaps playing I really don't think that the 10 to 30 yards that is gained from the forward tees over the middle tees really makes a ton of difference in the pace of play for a 25 or 30 index. Seven shots a hole takes a long time to hit no matter where you start from!

Some courses have handicap recommendations for each tee, but most (in Québec at least) don't. The way I always went about choosing the tees I play from is to use the length of the drive. If you can't carry your drive 235, then I don't see the point in playing a 7200-yard setup. Conversely, if you end up 50 yards past bunkers that are supposed to be obstacles to your drive, I don't think you're playing from the proper tees.

However, I always thought that whatever tees I played from, the rating/slope should compensate and yield a similar index for the same level of play from different tees -- which is a theoretical concept, of course, it being impossible to ensure that two different games played from different tees can be of the same "level".

First of all, the 89 at Bethpage would be after ESC. So you might have some 9s in there which balloon your actual score to 95, but once ESC kicks in, it may get you down to an 89.

But the rating/slope system has to be generic enough to fit for ALL golfers, not just you. There are a lot of different types of 10 handicappers out there. Some guys who can bomb it and hit decent irons, but absolutely suck at chipping and putting. Putting that player on a long course probably isn't going to matter much.

But then you have the short knocker who has a good short game, and a longer track is going to matter more to him than that other guy.

I'm the exact opposite of you. I have a better chance of playing to my index on a course with a higher rating/slope, but I have a buddy who's about the index of you, and he has much more trouble on those courses. He can hit it long but wrong. So when we play a match, I can predict probably 80% of the time who's going to win just by looking at the slope.

In the end, you have to develop a system that, on average, equalizes play for everybody.

The simple answer is that its impossible to make a formula that is perfect for all golfers because even with golfers in a specific handicap range there are different TYPES of golfers. For example me and my golf buddy both play off of a 12, however he has a great short game and I can hit much farther than he. He isn't as long off the tee and I tend to bleed shots around the green those are our respective weaknesses.

Just like there are different type os golfers, there are different types of courses. So, if we play a very lengthy course (lets say Bethpage Black like your example), he will have a MUCH more difficult time playing to his handicap than I would because he is a short hitter. If we then play on a short tight course, he generally has the advantage. (I am constantly trying to talk him into playing the back tees where ever we play, but he's to smart to agree). Of course Bethpage Black may be a bad example because its just hard all around especially when they start gearing up for the Open next summer, but you get the point.

The rating/slope system is good but not perfect. Different setups tend to bring out different weaknesses. Assessing which courses are more difficult for you to hit your handicap can give you a good idea of your weaknesses.

OK i am off to work on my short game now!

Roger that. At the course I've been playing most frequently, The difference in rating and slope between the whites and the blues doesn't correlate for me. I'll make similar mistakes from either tee and score pretty much the same from either tee. We usually choose the blues for that reason.

Pace of play seems to be determined more by the ability to quickly find an off-line shot, in my experience. If someone makes a mistake off the tee and drives the ball into the trees, having high rough in there makes the search much longer. My take: keep the rough so that it's penal, but there's no sense in maintaining it higher than the height of the ball in the second cut off the fairway to the tree line, and half the height of the ball in the trees. Pine straw or hardpan under the trees would be penal for most players, and would make it quicker to find the ball before a high-capper starts playing pinball in there.