How many calories do I burn playing golf? is the fifth most asked golf question on Ask.Com

How many calories a person burns while playing golf depends on three factors. One is body weight, as larger people burn more calories than their smaller counterparts. A second factor is how much time is spent playing golf, and the third aspect has to do with how active that person is on the range. A person who weighs 150 pounds and plays golf for two hours while he is carrying his clubs will burn 750 calories. A heavier person, weighing 200 pounds, will burn even more. During a two hour golf game, a 200-pound person carrying his golf clubs will burn 1,000 calories.

Sounds about right to me, but I’ll note that the number of people carrying their clubs out there is pretty small.

It may also be worth noting that, depending upon the course, a walker covers somewhere between three and five miles in a round. Of course, that’s assuming that you play straight down the middle. I cover much, much more ground.

What degree is a pitching wedge? is the fourth most-asked question on Ask.com. Their answer: 45 degrees.

That’s not a good answer. The loft of a modern pitching wedge is usually somewhere between 45 - 53 degrees of loft. It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and from set to set. The TaylorMade R9, for example has a pitching wedge with a 46 degree loft. Callaway’s X-24 HOT irons are a 45. The Callaway Diablo Edge is a 44. The Titleist MB is a 47.

Moreover, loft has changed over time, as manufacturers have tweaked sets for more distance by strengthening lofts. A “classic” set of irons probably has a pitching wedge with a loft at the higher end of the 45-53 degree range.

It also strikes me that the question really wasn’t very good. There are two measurements for clubheads that are expressed in degrees: loft and lie. I assume, however, that the questioners at Ask.Com are wondering about the loft.

Loft is the angle at which the club face tilts backward, and controls the trajectory of the ball. All things being equal, a higher loft will make a ball fly higher.

Lie, on the other hand, is the angle between the centerline of the shaft and the ground. When properly fitted to a player, a club with the correct lie angle will rest on a point directly under the club center, with the shaft in the player’s hand in a correct playing position. If the lie angle is too flat, or too steep, shots will tend to be offline.

What percentage of golfers shoot under 100? is the third most asked golf question on Ask.Com. Their answer: Only 5 percent of them will ever break 100, and of that 5 percent only 2 percent of them will ever break 80.

In fact, according to the National Golf Foundation, the average golf score remains where it has been for decades: 100. This, in spite of all the innovations in club and ball design and instruction. The USGA says that the average golf handicap for men is 16.1, and is 29.2 for women.

The National Golf Foundation breaks down scores this way:

Average score Percent of adult golfers
Under 80       5%
80-89       21%
90-99       29%
100-109       24%
110-119       10%
120+           11%
Total 100%

So, according to the NGF, 55% of golfers surveyed report breaking 100.

There are flaws in all these numbers, however. The first is that they assume golfers are playing by the rules. I have yet to see the round where a golfer took stroke-and-distance on a lost or out-of-bounds ball. Gimmies on the green are legion. Whiffs are declared “practice swings.” Mulligans on the first tee are expected as a matter of courtesy. Given this, I am certain that the average score is well above 100, and that handicaps are much higher than reported.

The handicap reporting also has issues because only better and/or more dedicated players tend to bother to pay for, and record their handicaps. Bad players don’t keep handicaps, so the “handicap” for the general population is much higher than reported.

In addition, the USGA’s handicap system is completely broken. There’s supposed to be a handicap committee on every course, along with the opportunity for “peer review.” Members are supposed to have “a reasonable and regular opportunity to play together” and access to scoring records must be available “for inspection by others, including, but not limited to, fellow club members.” I don’t know who would do the peer review on my handicap, since I often play alone, and even if playing with others almost never play with the same group twice. Even among regular groups, I’m certain that they are not going online to look up the scores others post to be sure it’s all on the up-and-up.

So what percentage actually break 100? I’m sure it’s higher than the Ask.Com figure of 5%, but its probably lower than the 55% reported by the National Golf Foundation. The best thing to say is that if you are legitimately shooting in the 90s, you are better than most. If you’re shooting in the 80s, you’re an excellent player. Those who shoot in the 70s are an anomaly.

The second most-asked question in Ask.Com’s compilation of golf-related questions was: How Long Does It Take To Play A Round Of Golf? Ask.Com says four hours for 18 holes.

I think that’s at least half an hour longer than the ideal. The Scots would be appalled at the typical American four hour round.

During off-peak hours at some of my favorite local courses, I can complete a solo walking round in well under three hours. With a foursome, all walking, I’ve completed rounds in just over three. Cart golf takes longer. But then I’ve also suffered through five hour rounds, waiting on every shot on every hole for the guys in front of me.

Most of the literature I’ve read says that the pace of play should average somewhere between 9 and 18 minutes per hole. On the low end would be perhaps nine minutes for a par 3, and the high end, 18 for a par 5.  That’s assuming that players hit the ball, find the ball and then hit it again. But there are so many things that can—and will—test that calculus. A strict interpretation of the rules, for example, says that a player has five minutes to look for a lost ball. If a ball is lost every two or three holes (a very common occurrence, given the skills sets of weekend hackers), you can add at least another half hour just in looking for balls.

That’s not good news, and I think that the time involved is a major detriment to the expansion of the game. During way too many moments spent sitting on benches waiting for the group ahead to clear out, I’ve thought quite a bit about why rounds of golf take so long.  I’ve come to the conclusion that the biggest factor is that players are using the wrong tees. For too many, it’s considered unmanly to hit from anything but the blue tees. But that just lengthens the course. To have a decent second shot, players have to swing from the heels off the tee, making it more likely that their balls will be off line, in the rough, into hazards, or just lost completely. That adds time. Playing from the wrong tees also means that the second shot will be longer than necessary, making it less likely the player will hit the green, requiring additional shots and additional time. And even if the player hits the green, it’s unlikely to be near the pin, requiring extra putts—and extra time.

Course owners and designers also haven’t done anyone any favors. Perhaps catering to players who expect a serious challenge for their mediocre skills, owners and architects seem to revel in offering “championship courses,” with a design fit for the next USGA championship. No new course or renovation I’ve seen has offered “player friendly design.” Championship course to me just means slow play from average players in above their heads on the blue tees.

Fixing the problem doesn’t require genius. In the short term, courses should surreptitiously push the tees up during peak play hours. Set the blue closer to the whites, and the whites more near the reds. In the long run, courses need to add additional tees, and identify the areas where players are most likely to lose their balls—then soften it up.

A course I played this week apparently has just done that. In years past, there were several areas that were madly overgrown with prairie grasses and weeds, precisely positioned to swallow up balls. I was pleasantly surprised this year to find that those areas had been mowed and seeded. I’m certain that it was done with an eye to speeding up play. That track has had a reputation in years past for slow play. And in my estimation, the holes affected by the newly widened fairways were a major part of the problem.

Our foursome played that course in just over four hours.

Ask.Com recently compiled a list of the top golf queries on the question-oriented search engine. The top question was: What does the word golf stand for?

The funny answer to that question is that it’s an acronym: Guys Only Ladies Forbidden. But that’s completely wrong.

Ask.Com says that “The word golf likely originated from the Medieval Dutch word “kolf” or “kolve” which meant “club”

I’ve read a lot about the origin of the word over the years, and I’m not convinced about this explanation, either. Klof, a a stick and ball game has been played in the Netherland since at least 1297. But it’s a long way from Kolf to Golf.  Kolf is played on an indoor course some 17.5 metres long and 5 metres wide, marked with looping scoring lines, and with an ornate wooden post planted at each end. And, the name of the club apparently is a kliek. (Dutch speaking readers should correct me on this, if necessary.) At any rate, the explanation might be more convincing if the Dutch game in any way resembled the Scottish. It doesn’t.

Further, lots of countries have played stick-and-ball games. The Romans had a stick and leather ball game called paganica. The Chinese had such a game. And the Maya. So did the Belgians and French, with a game called chole. That a game is played with a stick and ball doesn’t make it a precursor to golf. Everybody had a stick-and-ball game. So there’s no reason to suppose that the Scots had to borrow theirs from someone else.

The first written record of the word golf comes from March 6, 1457, when King James of Scotland banned the game. The edict reads in part: ….that fute-ball and golfe be utterly cryed downe, and not be used…. (Behind James’ seemingly random order was that the Scots at that time had been on the losing end of several conflicts with the English, thanks in no small part to the English mastery of the longbow. King James thought that instead of practicing golf, the Scots should be at their butts —the medieval term for an archery range. Golf had gotten in the way of national security.)

That King James had to issue an edict against the game indicates that it was well established—perhaps central—in Scottish culture at that point. After all, it was so ingrained and so widespread that the King had to ban it. Given the slow way in which things tended to travel in those days, it’s likely that the game had been played for a very long time prior to that. I’ll bet that the game in Scotland predates the 1297 origin of Kolf.

Other early written references refer to the sport as gouff, goiff, goffe, goff, gowff or golph. Note that no one, apparently, has found a version that begins with a “K”—which would be likely if the origin was Kolf.

There is, however, an old Scottish word, goulf (alternatly gowf, golfing, golfand), which means ” to cuff, or strike.” (again, any native Scots are invited to correct me on this). I have no idea why that wouldn’t be considered the origin of the game’s name.