Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Squaring Things Up with Slope: A Not So Friendly Nassau

Published

on

We’re standing on the putting green, me and my new brother-in-law who thinks he’s a real shark. I’m looking over the scorecard. Belmont, it’s his home course. I’ve never seen it before.

“What’s slope?” I ask like an innocent fish. “144, what does that mean?”

“Oh, it’s something about how the course rates in this area.  Something like that…”

He wants to play for money. I can tell. He’s making slow circles around me. His jaws are flexing like he smells chum. Not wanting to further the already great divide between families, I ask nicely, “How many will you give me?”

He makes a face like “What?” “Your sister says you play all the time. I thought you’d be giving me strokes. What’s your handicap, anyway?”

“Uh, 16,” I tell him.

“Oh, really?” The shark opens his mouth. Drool. “Okay, I’m a 10, I’ll give you three a side.” Pause. He tries to hide the smile, but his pointy teeth gleam in the sun. “A friendly 20?”

I’m good at what comes next. I pretend that my stomach turns over, squirting a cup or two of acid up into my esophageal whatever… I have that look like I’ve just been splayed out onto the chopping block. And the meat cleaver is poised to strike.

“Like, a $20 Nassau, you mean?”

“Yeah. Too rich for you? I can’t believe that.”

“Uh, no, but… Hey, let me get a coffee first,” I tell him, “got to steady my nerves.” And I head for the grill.

Part of my innocent dork routine is to have professional backup in place before the negotiation is complete, so I sneak into the pro shop and naively ask the preoccupied pro, “What’s ‘slope’ anyway?” The old guy pretends to be busy with some woman over at the hats. She’s not interested in what he’s selling and he turns back to me.

“Slope?” he asks.

“Yeah, slope. What is it? It’s on all the scorecards.”

“Oh,” he says, “it tells you how much elevation you’ll find on the course. You know, like the slope of the fairways.” And with that he goes off to the hats again.

I’ve asked this question a lot and this is probably one of the dumbest answers I’ve gotten. It doesn’t out-stupid the one I got from a lady once who told me that “it predicted whether or not the cart had enough battery to make the entire 18 holes.” But from a guy who should know, “slope of the fairways” was pretty dumb.

I saw a young assistant pro in the back room at a small messy desk toting up some numbers on a calculator. I leaned in the doorway and asked him.

“It tells you the relative difficulty of courses for a bogey golfer,” he says without looking up. (There you have it. Always ask the younger guy. The old guy’s too lazy or tired to bring himself up to date.)

“I’m a bogey golfer,” I tell him, “so what does this 144 mean to me?”

He turns and looks me over. “What’s your index?” he says. I just happened to know my Handicap Index because I see it every time I post a score on GHIN. “15.5,” I respond.

“OK.” He turns back to the calculator and says, “Your index is your traveling handicap. Since you’re here at Belmont and not at your home course, you take that traveling handicap of 15.5 and multiply it times the Belmont slope of 144, then divide by 113, and that gives you your handicap for Belmont.” He’s doing the calculation as he speaks and I see 19.75 light up the screen.

“You should play about 20-over par here,” he says and smiles, like, “Anything else?”

“Thanks,” I say, and head back out to the putting green to gaff the not so Great White one.

“Bro,” I smile, “I was just talking to the pro, let’s play for 50. But you have to give me 5 a side.”

He blanches. “No, really. This course is much harder than my home course, that’s what the 144 tells us, and my 16 translates to a 19.75 here. That’s four more than what you were offering.  Shame on you. What do you say? 50?”

He stammers, “Wha.. whaddya mean five a side?”

“Well, that’s what the pro said,” I tell him again. The shark eyes are blank. He’s lost the scent: jaws frozen. “Well, OK, if you want to be really precise,” I continue, “you have to give me 9.75 strokes. Like 5 on the front and 4.75 on the back.”

“What?” Now his eyes look like they’re going in opposite directions. I think I’ve got him. “4.75?”

“Yeah,” I explain, “give me 0.75 on a hole, then if we tie the hole I win with a push. Just like in Blackjack.” His gills are pulsing, searching for oxygen. “Or, you can give me a quarter of a stroke on three different holes. Whaddya say?”

“I’m not giving you 9 or 10 strokes! Your sister says you’re really good.” He’s outraged.

“Oh, I thought you wanted a little action.” And I drop a couple of balls 3 feet from a hole and proceed to miss them badly: push, pull, push. The “relative” tries to think it over. But he’s dead in the water.

“Okay, look,” I continue, “if you don’t like the idea of 0.75 strokes, then just round if off: 5 on the front and 5 on the back. It’s the same thing.”

Not wanting to look like the manatee he really was, he eventually caved and agreed: $50 Nassau with five a side.

Now, whether or not he knew what slope was, I’ll never know. (And whether or not I’m really a 16, you’ll never know.) What I do know is that he thought he could use his home course advantage to take my money. But by squaring things up with slope, I got into his head in a major way. He spent the first nine cussing to himself and the back going totally to pieces.

He balked at the 2-down automatic press on the front and for the 18, and positively refused it on the back. So I only wound up taking $250 from him.

Welcome to the family. And pay attention to the slope.

Writing about golf, the game, the travel, and the experiences comprises the bulk of Baff’s retired time. That and trying to figure out how to crank a few extra yards out of his tee shot…

18 Comments

18 Comments

  1. ButchT

    Dec 21, 2016 at 10:06 am

    I appreciate learning how to use “slope.”

  2. Ben Richards

    Dec 20, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    Whoever green-lighted this article should be fired. This goes down as the worst article ever written on Golfwrx. That’s tough to do considering there have been a lot of bad ones in the past (many, many good ones too).

  3. Scott

    Dec 20, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    I am sorry, I have to call BS. A pro would never say that you are a 19.75 on the course today, unless you were playing some type of tournament which used a percent of the handicap. A course handicap calculator would have said 20. If the point of the article is to make sure that you are using handicaps and not indexes when you are betting then mission accomplished. I feel bad for every member of that course to have 2 clueless pros wondering around trying to hawk lessons and shirts.

  4. 8thehardway

    Dec 20, 2016 at 9:47 am

    You just furthered “the already great divide between families” and your poor sister’s gonna be stuck defending you to her sore loser husband for years. Divorce is inevitable but next go-around, be kind and go for the long con instead.

  5. TheCityGame

    Dec 20, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Can we count the ways this article makes no sense?

    1) As part of your innocent dork act, you ask 2 pros what slope means without your BIL there?

    2) You think you could get 19.75 strokes, so you clearly still don’t understand how a course handicap is calculated.

    3) You adjust YOUR handicap/index but not your BIL’s handicap index after learning what slope means.

    4) One pro doesn’t know what slope is. One pro tells you you’re a 19.75 and should shoot about 20 over PAR here. No, you should shoot about 20 over the COURSE RATING (or to be precise, the 10 best of your last 20 should average about 20 over the course rating).

    5) BIL agreed to play for 6 stokes, $20 nassau, but you come out of the clubhouse and counter-offer 10 strokes, $50 nassau and he’s ok with this.

    6) You have a $50 nassau, and he balks at the automatic presses, so (a) clearly the presses weren’t automatic and (b) how did a $50 nassau get to $250 if there weren’t any presses?

    7) “Whether or not I’m really a 16, you’re never know”. Are you suggesting you lied to your new brother in law about your index? “Welcome to the family”, indeed. Sounds like a really nice family.

    8) I’m leaving stuff out because I thought I was getting a little nit-picky.

    • Harry

      Dec 21, 2016 at 1:49 pm

      If this was the BIL home course then his handicap is 10 like he said.

      • Phil

        Dec 21, 2016 at 6:50 pm

        Nope – my handicap and my course handicap are totally different things. The article does not state that his BIL is referring to his course handicap as most people don’t. In fact, the article is pointing out that people should be using course handicap instead of just handicap.

  6. baddomes

    Dec 20, 2016 at 9:39 am

    I’ve been waiting almost a month for the second Jim Baffico article! I thought Jim Baffico was done writing articles! I’m glad he’s not!

    Thanks Jim!

  7. me

    Dec 20, 2016 at 9:10 am

    This is pure garbage.

  8. Dill Pickleson

    Dec 20, 2016 at 3:30 am

    so, you’re a cheat. this is why i only play scratch and i’ll give away advantage to better golfers. at least i have my honor. but, certainly won’t be betting $50 with an over-eager 15.5 hdcp.

    this is also why i avoid stableford competitions.

  9. Double Mocha Man

    Dec 19, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    I refuse any money rounds where I need to take my accountant along…

  10. Tom

    Dec 19, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Loved the article, reminds me of a typical weekend at my course. What’s with the 25+ shanks…. too complicated for ya?

    • Phil

      Dec 19, 2016 at 7:54 pm

      I suspect the shanks is because he applied the slope rating to his handicap and conveniently failed to do so for his brother-in-law. He was only entitled to 7.75 strokes at best, not 10. And the deliberate missing of 3 foot putts. Lets face it – his brother-in-law never had a chance with a shark like this guy.

      • Double Mocha Man

        Dec 20, 2016 at 2:06 pm

        But his brother-in-law sounded like the shark in the first place. A little comeuppance never hurts an egotistical guy.

  11. Charlie

    Dec 19, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Play from the correct tees and a set amount of money per hole.

  12. Pbar23

    Dec 19, 2016 at 10:34 am

    My question regarding this is when your index is a 0.0. In this case nothing ever changes for you regardless of slope because based on the equation it will always be 0. Now if you were a plus handicap then you would help in your favor. If you were a +1.5 at a 144 slope you would essentially play to a +1.1 (in the equation I am using a negative number for the index so 144 x -1.5= -216/113 =1.9 therefore take the .4 difference and subtract it from the 1.5). So my question is should the ability to have an index of 0 be possible or should it always be some form of a fractional number?

    • Eddie

      Dec 19, 2016 at 12:18 pm

      Yes, it is possible to have a 0.0 index. However, to have a differential of 0.0 for the round, the rating would need to be a whole number and you would need to shoot that exact number.

      Differential calculation is [[Score-Course Rating] x Slope]÷113

      So if you shot a 74 from the white tees at Bethpage Black (74 rating / 145 slope), your handicap differential for the round would be [[74-74] x 145]÷113=0.0.

      Had you shot 74 from the back tees at Bethpage Black (78.1/152), your differential for the round would have been [[74-78.1]x152]÷113= -5.5

    • George

      Dec 21, 2016 at 7:47 am

      Actually, if you have an index of +1.5 you’d have a course Hcp of 144/113*1.5=1.9. If you would have a course Hcp of 1.5 you’d have an index of 1.5/144*113=1.2. If I understand The US Hcp system.
      Over here in Europe the CR goes into the equation, too. So your course Hcp would be Slope/113*index-CR+Par
      E.g. On a course with Slope 144 and CR 73.1 and Par 72 you’d have a course hcp 144/113*1.5-73.1+72=+0.8 or +1

      Our player from the article would have a course hcp of -20.85 or -21

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending