Who knew it would come on a Tuesday, not even during a major week. But today a scientist at Purdue University revelaed the secret to lower golf scores.

As you may have suspected, it's about putting. Jessica Witt, a psychologist at Purdue, interviewed golfers after their rounds about their perception of the size of the hole. You know that feeling that "the hole looked like a bucket"? Well, turns out there's something to it.

Witt's team asked 46 golfers to estimate the size of the hole after playing a round of golf. From a poster, they selected one of nine black holes, ranging in size from 3.5 to 5 inches (9 to 13 cm). In reality, the diameter of a golf hole is 4.3 inches (10.8 cm).

Those who selected larger holes had better scores on the course that day.

In a related (I think) scientific study, researchers studying weight loss announced an amazing finding, with (I think) implications for golf. According to Science Daily:

Keeping a food diary can double a person's weight loss according to a study from Kaiser Permanente's Center for Health Research. The findings, from one of the largest and longest running weight loss maintenance trials ever conducted, will be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

And how exactly does this relate to golf, you might ask? Here's my take: Weight loss and "stroke loss" aren't all so different. In each case we're looking for reduction. Most of us keep score during our golf rounds--so we keep a "journal" if you will--but we tend to keep an inaccurate one. That's because of Equitable Stroke Control (ESC). If we're on our way to a healthy 10, and we know we can only enter for handicap purposes a score of 6, some of us (me) simply put the 6. What did you shoot, someone asks. Oh, I had a "newspaper" 79, we reply. That 79 is really an 85. Add a few gimmes that really weren't and maybe that 79 is really an 87.

My contention is that unless you face up to the 87, you'll never really reduce it. So, based on the weight loss finding, I'm vowing today to keep real score, thereby doubling my chances of reducing my handicap.hart your rounds and record them in the Golf Digest Challenge. Tracking fairways, greens and putts makes you an even better "journal" keeper.

In short, be honest, score lower.

--Bob Carney

Golf Digest reader Dwight Morgan of Saphhire, N.C. writes with a question that comes up often among my playing partners, especially when they include women.

Thank you for the article "What is a 10 Handicapper?" in the June, 2008 issue - it clarifies many elements of the handicapping system.

There is one circumstance for which additional clarification would be helpful--that is when there is competition with players using different tees. Individual players have handicaps established from the tees which they regularly play. For illustration, consider the following example:

Player "A" plays from the White tees, rated 67.1/119. Player "B" plays from the Gold tees, rated 63.9/110.

When there is 'inter-tee' competition, should there be an adjustment of handicaps in consideration of the difference in Course Rating and/or Slope? If so, how should the adjustment be implemented? Lastly, where would one find documented guidelines for this adjustment?

Indeed, Dwight, there is an adjustment. In the case above, there is a difference of slightly more than three strokes in the course ratings. Therefore, the procedure is: Each player first converts his or her Handicap Index to a course handicap, based on the rating of the tees they are playing. Let's say the two players above, playing from different tees, are both 14-handicaps. The player on the tougher course would then get additional strokes based on the difference in the course ratings; in this case, three strokes. Therefore, Player "A" on the White course above, would receive three shots from player "B" on the Gold course. The USGA web site's Handicapping section has several pages devoted to this issue.

--Bob Carney

Alex Lavin, Highland Park, Ill., perhaps thinking that Tiger's knee injury makes him vulnerable, send this question.

My friends and I have been engrossed in an argument over the past few days: The score Tiger Woods would shoot at our local course, with a rating of 71.1. The question: If I carry an Index of 0.8 could I come within ten shots of Tiger if we played together. Compelling arguments say I could, yet there is strong support for the other side. Please give us some guidance.

To answer your question, we need a couple of additional pieces of information: Tiger's handicap and the slope of your golf course. A friend in the industry, a scratch player himself, who claims to have calculated this, says Tiger's last 20 tournament scores make him a plus-13. Even if we were to use his ten worst scores instead of his ten best from the last 20, says the friend, he would be plus-8. But let's go with plus-13; he's earned it.

And let's assume the slope of your course is 130, from which we calculate your course handicap. That's done by dividing this slope by the average slope (113). In that case, 130 divided by 113 is 1.15. Multiply that by your 0.8 Index and you get 1.05, or 1. We'll drop Tiger one shot because this course is harder than average. He's now a plus-12.

Things still aren't looking good for you.
--Bob Carney

"You're really doing this? He's going to play the Open course? He won't be able to think straight...Tour pros can shoot in the 80s on an Open course. What does that say for a 7-handicap?" Padraig Harrington

Actually, our U.S. Open contest winner, John Atkinson, is an 8.0 Index, probably a 10-handicap on Torrey Pines as laid out for the Open. Reader Mark White was fascinated by Guy Yocom's June Golf Digest article about what it means exactly to be a 10 but had a correction on our description of Slope Rating.

I enjoyed the "What is a 10-Handicapper?" article and am looking forward to seeing how regular golfers do on the 2008 U.S. Open course. If Tiger, with his "plus-9" handicap, has trouble with par then these guys will make for some entertaining viewing (keep the medical staff specializing in wrists on standby). I did question the narrative on slope rating: "Poorer players' scores rise exponentially when playing courses with a high slope rating..." The slope in slope rating refers to the slope of a line and not of a curve and as such scores would rise linearly and not exponentially. The article was very informative and should be required reading for anyone teeing it up in handicap golf matches. It would be interesting to have the USGA determine the course and slope rating for every U.S Open course set up. I would expect them to be above the highest ones in America of 80.0 and 155, except the USGA states that the "The lowest Slope Rating is 55 and the highest is 155".

Mark, the USGA, with the help of the Southern California Golf Association, will rate Torrey Pines under Open conditions. We don't know what the rating will be yet, but your estimate is probably pretty close. Dean Knuth, who developed the Slope System for the USGA, says that an 80/155 ratings is possible, depending on course set-up.

Regarding linear versus exponential increases in Slope ratings, Knuth says: "The USGA Handicap Research Team found that most courses do show linear increase in scores as handicaps increase. However, certain courses at the extreme end do show an increase in scores on a curve, not a straight line. Ko'olau in Hawaii was an example, before the course managers eased back on that course's difficulty."

Padraig Harrington is not the only tour pro who thinks our amateur has no chance to break 100. See "This Could Get Ugly" for more comments. What do you think? Make a prediction on the amateurs' scores--that's Atkinson, Matt Lauer, Justin Timberlake and Tony Romo-- and enter a sweepstakes to win your own trip to Torrey.

--Bob Carney

(Illustration: John Ueland)

For Tim Fulton of Davie, Florida, the U.S. Open Contest, and Guy Yocom's June-issue story in Golf Digest on what constitutes a 10-handicapper, unearthed a great deal of resentment about the USGA Handicap system.

After reading ?What is a 10-handicapper??, I once again wonder if the people running the USGA can compete in the ?Are you smarter than a 5th grader show?? The obvious answer is no.

Tiger?s challenge was simple;? a 10-handicapper couldn?t break 100.? Leave it to the USGA to lamely try and justify their ridiculous handicapping system. A handicap system is quite easy to do, a 10 is a 10, and a 10 is not a 14 as the USGA tries to make us believe. The reason they have to adjust it upward is because of their silly Equitable Stroke Control system. Their claim that a blow-up hole shouldn?t be allowed to ruin a round or elevate your handicap, is wrong. To follow that same misguided logic, a superior hole; a hole in one, an albatross or eagle, should not be allowed to arbitrarily lower your round or handicap. Using their logic a 12 handicap should never get a hole in one, it?s a birdie and for a 20 handicap it?s a par. Silliness to the extreme.

I recently went out and shot a 45 with 19 putts on the front and came back in 36 with 9 putts; should I throw the 45 out? Of course not, that?s golf, that?s what the USGA doesn?t get. If there is a problem with a sandbagger, every club knows who they are and most chose not to address the problem. Relying on the USGA to formulate a solution is like asking Congress to be responsible, the USGA has no clue.

The USGA bases its whole system on ?defining the golfer?s potential?. They assume, wrongly, that potential can only mean good. By definition, potential is the capability of developing into actuality. There is nothing about good or bad, so it is either. That is the true essence of golf, the potential to do good or bad. To throw out the bad through ESC is merely creating ?vanity handicaps?. If you are throwing out 10 or 20 rounds, a bad round is not going to affect your true handicap.

When I spoke with the USGA about the ESC system and how dumb it was, I got the classic response,?that?s the way it?s always been?. Which of course doesn?t mean its right; it?s just the way it?s always been.

When you look at the challenge going on at Torrey Pines next month, I wish the participants the best, but there is not a true 10 handicapper amongst them, so the Tiger challenge won?t be answered and will still stand. Shame on the USGA.

John Atkinson, our contest winner, will be at least a 10 when his course handicap is calculated. (His index is 8.0). And if you listen to the tour pros we've interviewed, he's got no chance. Unless, of course, he plays to that potential.

--Bob Carney

When the Golf Digest U.S. Open Challenge is played at Torrey Pines on the eve of the U.S. Open, we'll see a test that is perfect in scale. A 10-handicapper trying to break 100 at Torrey, in front of a gallery, national TV audience and three celebrities playing alongside him, would experience a challenge in any case. But with the course in murderously difficult condition, it will be the golf equivalent of climbing Mount Everest without oxygen. Guy Yocom

Steve Stuthard of Kingman, AZ, writes with a question about Guy Yocom's "What is a 10 Handicapper?" story done in conjunction with the U.S. Open Contest.

Terrific article, but I must admit it made me question my golf-manhood. Mr. Yocom states that "The national handicap index for men is 14.7". I vary between a 14 and 17 depending upon the season and conditions.

I have often read in your magazine and others that the average recreational male golfer shoots between 95 and 100 which certainly does not equate to a 14.7. My own experience also tells me most of the people I play with (or get paired with) are significantly higher than a 14.

How did Mr. Yocom get his numbers? I'm thinking I and all the people I have played with might be better suited for Tennis!

Steve, there are a lot of us better suited to tennis (or pinochle, for that matter.) But to answer your questions: The numbers Guy relied on come from the USGA's handicap guru, Kevin O'Connor. Golf Digest's consulatant on handicapping, Dean Knuth, has this comment:

I think that Steve is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the average USGA Handicap Index in America is around 15.0, but golfers with USGA Handicap Indexes represent a minority of all golfers, because the majority don't have an official handicap. The average score of golfers without USGA Handicaps is over 100. The 15.0 on average would translate to a 17 Course Handicap, the average USGA Course Rating being about 70. Golfers average three strokes over their handicaps, so the average score of such golfers is 90 (17 plus 70 plus 3). But again, if we're talking about all golfers--those with handicaps and those without--the average score would be more than 100.

--Bob Carney

I love this letter from Stewart Thomson of Newport Beach, California. In it he reports on a pre-test of the whole US Open contest: Can a 10-handicap golfer break 100 on the Open course under Open conditions?

Like several contestants in the US Open contest, Stewart offered, in his essay, to make a contribution to charity (Tiger Woods Foundation) for every stroke over 100, if he were the Average Joe picked to play Torrey Pines. Though not chosen as a finalist, he decided to determine just how much he would have spent by going to Torrey Pines and playing the course. Here's his report:

Thank you for not picking my entry, where I pledged $1,000 to the Tiger Woods Foundation for every stroke over 100.  I thought this would cost me about $10,000 and after playing TP South yesterday with our club's Senior Group, I believe you saved me some money!

I maintain that a 10-handicap player will not break 100.  Our tournament rules yesterday were white tees (1,000 yards less than the black tees), ESC to speed up play, and if a ball is lost in the rough, drop a ball, so the conditions were far from the official rules.  My group was a 7, 9, 10 and 13 handicap and we shot 86, 86, 98 and 98 respectively.  Except for the 9, we all lost balls in the rough, although I expect you will have spotters and caddies to help for searches, which we did not have.  Also, the rough was more penal than it will be for the Open as the USGA is letting the rough grow longer now, so that they can cut it to even heights before the tournament.  Lastly, the greens were not as fast as they will be in June.

Based on yesterday's play, our 9, who hit a very straight ball and probably only was saved one or two strokes by ESC, would be closest to your standard, but in my estimation would not break 100 under your playing rules.  Based on his play yesterday, it would be very close.  The secret key is to stay out of the rough, which he did on all but 4 holes.

I appreciate the difficulty in your selecting the five finalists, but to be fair, a 4.7, 6.4 and someone without an index do not qualify, in my opinion, so I have voted for John and I hope he wins, although he will be very disappointed when he hits his 100th stroke on 17!

Interesting comment about your choice among the finalists. John Atkinson is leading by a considerable margin at this point. John's popularity is certainly due in part to his brave fight against cancer and the wonderfully positive approach he's taken to talking about it. But I'm coming to believe that another reason people have voted for John is that his handicap is closest to the 10 to which Tiger referred when he said a 10 couldn't break 100 at last year's Open course. John's course handicap, were he to be chosen, would be more than 10, actually; probably 11 or 12.

For the record, all of the finalists have handicaps. We estimate their Torrey Pines course handicaps will range from 8 for Erik Norton and Matt Rice to 12 for Phil Dembure and John Atkinson. The precise number will depend on the rating of the course in Open condition, which will happen soon.

Thanks for the detailed report, Stewart. And, um, feel free to make that contribution anyway....

--Bob Carney
 

Eric Silfer of West Chester, Pennsylvania, not far from where my 10-handicap friend Friedman lives and where, hopefully, he and I will play soon, has a problem with our US Open Contest Final Five choices:

I am highly disappointed to see that the 5 golfers you selected for the final don't really meet what I understood the basic premise of the challenge to be in the first place: that a 10 handicapper couldn't break 100 on a U.S. Open course and set up. The highest legitimate index in the group seems to be an 8.0, with one "estimating" his handicap at 10. Wow.

Not only will I not be voting for any of them, as nice as they may be or as interesting as their stories may be, but I won't be watching the telecast of it either. I was looking forward to seeing how someone meeting the general classification, i.e. a 10, would handle the course, but you don't have that anymore.

We mailed Dean Knuth, the handicap expert, and he tends to agree with you, Eric. Let me give you our justification, for what it's worth:

First, as you know, the indices of the finalists are not their handicaps. Handicaps are derived from indices based on the course being played. Knuth says the most a 5 handicap such as Erik Norton would get is three shots, making him an 8. John Atkinson, who is an 8.0 index could get more (as would Phil Dembure, a 7.9), taking him well over the 10 mark. So let's say we have an 8 and a 12 as our high and low players.

When Tiger made his statement, he was talking about the difficulty of the course (and specifically, about the difficulty of Oakmont). But the course was key. He was not referring, as far as I can tell, to cameras or crowds, he was talking about nasty rough, narrow fairways and slick greens. Not television cameras, playing with three celebrities, or having the focus of a 60,000-entries contest and our magazine focused squarely on your head--and your game. So let's say low man Erik Norton starts as an 8. Add those other factors and I think he's close to what Tiger was talking about.

We wanted a bit of drama in this, Eric. We played with these guys in Texas. There are no slam dunks to break 100 here. Indeed, if you took a poll of the staff (teachers and editors) it would be 4-1 against any of them breaking 100. We've interviewed a few tour pros about this. Most say, no way.

The only pretty sure bet to break 100 in the foursome is Tony Romo. And we eliminated many "Tony Romos" in our selection process because they were just too good. They really were not what Tiger was talking about. Example: James Doing, the Wisconsin voice coach who made the hilarious "Oh what a beautiful morning!" video you've probably seen. Doing was a plus handicap.

So we get your point and it's a fair one. But ask someone who watches the show if in the end it wasn't pretty close to the original idea.

Thanks,

Bob

It's my theory that February is the cruelest month. That is, it makes you cruel, I'm guessing because most of you haven't played golf in a while and are ornery as hell. As support for this theory, I present the following collection of letters to Golf World:

After viewing the AT&T Pro-am I believe that Chris Berman has one of the worst swings in golf, worse than Charles Barkley. And if Berman's handicap is really 18, then the USGA has a serious problem with handicapping. John J. Connolly

I always thought Tom Pernice Jr. was a nice guy. Then I read in your February 8 issue one of his faves is Ann Coulter. Just goes to show you how wrong you can be. Agreeing with her politics is one thing, having her as afave considering her style is anything but nice. Chuck Anderson, Orlando.

Well, you just can't help yourselves. You just 'had to' put Woods on the cover of February 8th issue of Golf World. Can't you just let someone else have the cover honour by themselves? A whole lot of us are sick and tired of the constant ramming down our throats of Woods. Please, give us all a break. Also, Karrie Webb wins her fourth Australian Women's Open and you give her a couple of lines, in passing...Ron Field, Morton. Wa.

--Bob Carney

(Photo by Andrew Redington, Getty)

How do you get from Jack Nicholson to Equitable Stroke Control? I'm not sure, but reader Tim Fulton of Davie, Florida managed to do it and ask a good question at the same time:

The recent interview with Jack Nicholson was wonderful. It showed him to be the marvelous character in real life that he has portrayed so often in his career. His private rules for golf, which he "doesn't always observe but uses for amusement", are fun and all us weekend hackers understand the reason for them. I was appalled, but not surprised, when you listed him as tied for #47 on Hollywood?s top 100. In the very page before he admits to taking liberty with the rules of golf and yet you recognize his handicap. The reason I wasn't surprised is because the current USGA handicap system, as defined by the "Dean Knuth baloney of golf", is nothing more than a license to cheat with their Equitable Stroke Control system....

Equitable Stroke Control, most of you know, limits the score you can record for handicap purposes on any given hole:

0-9 Course Handicap has a max score of double bogey.
10-19 has a max score of 7 on any hole
20-29 max of 8

Tim isn't buying. And raises an interesting point:

Potential does not always mean good; a person has the potential to do bad also.... Are so called blow-up holes not part of the game? Everybody has them on occasion. If we follow that false logic, shouldn't "exceptional" holes also be adjusted? Eagles and hole in ones are in essence blow-up holes and shoul d be adjusted upward.....