How do you turn back the Clock ?

[ForkaB]

Tom

You misread me yet again, but that is your problem, not mine,

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

Your logic defies my understanding.    

Let's use your 18th at Merion example.  Yes, we both overcame the intense, VISUALLY daunting demands of the tee shot and escaped unscathed.  It was probably also the most solid drive I hit all day.

And you say that it makes no difference to you what it looks like?  So, just for discussion purposes, let's say that instead of the rock-strewn, craggy quarry wall and other vegetation, a misguided attempt at "fairness" left that stretch as just smooth turf with light rough to the top of the hill...pretty, green, and consistent.  

The carry to the fairway would be the same distance.  Since that area is deemed to be "within the quarry", it would still be played as a "hazard" under the rules of golf, meaning that if you find your ball you can play it but not ground your club.

Same shot?  Same psychological demands?  If so, please tell me your thinking?  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"Rich
No matter--you've long held the Muccian view that aesthetics play little are no part in architectural matters."

And Rich Goodale responded:

"Tom
You misread me yet again, but that is your problem, not mine,"

How many times have we heard that on here? Are Pat Mucci and Rich Goodale the same person? Is it possible that everyone out there in the Internet World can't read?

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I've been following this thread with great amusement as you guys try to figure out Rich's thinking.  I used to try this myself... I mean, the man did once say that #16 at Cypress was "no big deal, just a solid driver, right side of the green" ho hum...  Thinking like that was as mind-boggling to me then as you are seeming to find it today.

Then I realized this really IS how he thinks, and it's unique among amateur players, but at least logical - he's plain and simple TARGET-oriented to an extreme beyond any golfer I've met.  That is, the target is all that matters... what's in between, no matter how spectacular or daunting, really doesn't matter a lick.  It takes a very confident golfer to think this way - that is, to not let the negative thoughts intrude when what's in the way is 220 yards worth of ocean - but Rich is such.  Given the target on 16 Cypress is pretty big and flat, you can see how he'd call it a ho-hum hole, can't you?

Now watch him come on and tell me how wrong I am... if so, don't listen, that's just his contrarian nature and uneasiness at being "figured out" talking!

TH

[GeoffreyChilds]

Mike

You are assuming from your last post that the consequences of landing within a hazard are different for the two examples used.  While this might be the case it is certainly not necessarily so.  While something might look intimidating and rough as the CP #13 picture portrays the actual playability of each example (the two photos) might be very similar.  Any golfer with reasonable skills will quickly learn what to really avoid because of the consequences and what is simply an attempt at visable intimidation and/or artistic beauty of the surroundings. I hesitate to bring up this example but my approach to the 15th at Bethpage Black today is no less imposing then it was 30 years ago.

[ForkaB]

Mike

I didn't really see the quarry on 18, or even 16.  No more than I saw the scrub on 13 or 2 or 8 CPC, or even the Pacific Ocean at 16 on the latter.  In all those cases, I just saw a tee shot, with a pretty long carry that I assumed was possible for the simple reason that I knew that many golfers, of both greater and lesser ability had been in those places before and made the carry.

I'm being honest here, and actually I think it does really bring up a significant difference in perception and perspective.  Some people get absolutely flummoxed or orgasmic by the aethetics and possibilities that artistic expressions by people like Mike Miller conjure up in their minds.  Others just see the hole for what it is, in golfing terms, and just play the shot.  For better or for worse, I'm one of the latter.

All the best

Rich

[GeoffreyChilds]

Mike

I also meant to include the point that I think you are really saying something like - Lets let hazards really play like hazards - oh and it would certainly be a great bonus if they fit in with the landscape and added esthetics to the enjoyment of a round of golf.

[THuckaby2]

Well whaddya know.  I believe I summed up Rich's thinking correctly.  Of course I got the benefit of our posts crossing in space... I somewhat evilly think he didn't see mine before he posted his...  

In any case though, it seems to me there is nothing wrong with the way Rich approaches the game - I'd venture to say that the vast majority of pros think this way also.

This is a big beautiful game indeed.  

TH

[ForkaB]

Huckster

Looks like you got me right this time!

[TEPaul]

"he's plain and simple TARGET-oriented to an extreme beyond any golfer I've met.  That is, the target is all that matters... what's in between, no matter how spectacular or daunting, really doesn't matter a lick"

Really? I don't think even Tiger Woods thinks like that. But maybe Rich is better than he is or at least mentally stronger.

Frankly, I believe I remember Rich saying if he's playing a tournament or whatever, he plays much differently than that. Certainly it can't be his handicap that would give him concern about things like what's between the tee and the target at Cypress's #16 because he only needs to post three scores per year for handicap purposes.

Maybe if I didn't care what I shot, maybe if it didn't really mean much of anything at all, maybe then I wouldn't care at all what''s between the tee and the target on Cypress's #16 either.

What risk? What am I risking? If my ball goes in the Pacific, so what? Who cares?

Let's put something on the line and see if Rich sees what's between the tee and the target at Cypress's #16. Or maybe he didn't really mean he plays very differently if it happens to be a tournament or when something is on the line.

[THuckaby2]

We keep crossing... very cool, no hassles.  I am just having a bit of fun with this.

TH

[ForkaB]

Tom P

See Tom H's post to really undertand where I am coming form.  Disregard Tom M who doesn't know me.

By the way (BTW) what were you thinking on the 18th at Merion that day with me and Cirba and Dow?  I really do want to know as your perspective and relative ability is very diffeent to mine (and Mike's and Willie's) and we had 4 very different approaches to and results from the shot on that hole on that day.

All the best

Rich

[THuckaby2]

TEP - you'll notice I didn't get into WHY Rich thinks this way, but I believe you are getting that... in "bounce rounds", it doesn't matter at all what score on records, so yep, no risk, no care, no nothing.  The venue doesn't change this for Rich also.

COMPETITION does change things.  If he was playing in a tourney he cared about at CPC, heck yes he'd notice the carry required on 16, and if competitive circumstances dictated it, heck yes he'd lay up left.

Rich is also very unique in how "binary" this is to him... competive golf and bounce games being two totally different things.  I'd say most of us think that way, but we also do care about our scores even in bounce games... or at least care about the outcome on famous golf holes!  To Rich it's a lot more black and white - if it's not competition, it doesn't matter, no matter what golf hole he's on.  Then given his strong target-oriented nature, if the target is large, then ho-hum, fire away... in a bounce game... and in competition, also disregard what's in the way once the decision to fire at the target has been made, but also take a look at what's in the way just in terms of strategic choices.

It's a damn strong way of thinking, really.

Or maybe I should have quit whilst breaking even?  
TH

[ForkaB]

Tom P

I'm off to do a bit of babysitting, so whilst the rest of you psycoanlayze (sic) me and my game, you should know that under CONGU I must post scores from EVERY competition I enter (usually 30 or so/year, but a minimum of 3).  Many times more than you normally post under the GHIN system, but I'm not really counting..........

[TEPaul]

"Many times more than you normally post under the GHIN system, but I'm not really counting.........."

Rich:

So you see, the GHIN system really isn't as mindlessly quantity based as you thought is it? I wish I had posted 30 times last year but I didn't play 30 rounds.

[THuckaby2]

Rich - please do realize that the way smart people and good golfers think about the game is very interesting to me and I learn from it - thus my participation here.

I also remain damn impressed that with your obligations family and otherwise, you get in 30 competitive golf results to post.  I gather normal club events count for that?

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

Thanks for your answer.  I admire your focus and it probably helps your game but I wonder if you aren't missing something valuable...or at least enjoyable.

Geoffrey;

Yes, in my example, not only has the intimidating "look" of the hazard changed, but the "playability" as well.  My contention is that in most cases there is a direct relationship between how a hazard, such as a bunker, looks, and how it plays.  Generally, if it looks nasty, rugged, naturally irregular, steep, daunting, fearsome, uncertain, and penalizing, it is.  

And THAT is precisely what I wanted to understand about Rich's answer.  As you know, Pine Valley is one of the most visually intimidating courses in the world, simply because on most every shot you can see in clear and gory detail what is the probable outcome(s) for the misplayed shot.  Even with the recent "conditioning" of the bunker and sandy areas at PV, for the most part virtually anything can happen.  This type of score-wrecking visually-influenced uncertainty is what makes the course so unrelenting and intimidating.  

In a way, a recoverable hazard such as a bunker or quarry should be a lot more fun and interesting than a water hazard, where the outcome is always known (even the Pacific Ocean) and the next shot is just a boring drop.  

It's one thing to see what I have to challenge or carry and know the worst that can happen is a stroke penalty.  It's another to see a fearsome bunker and realize that I'll have to find it and then play it from THERE!!  

That's when the real fun begins!  

[GeoffreyChilds]

Mike

Well put or should I say spot on  

I knew that we were in complete agreement and I only wanted to point out that players of reasonable skill quickly learn at least a bit of Rich's approach to scoring on a golf course (no pun intended).  There still has to be some bite to go along with all the barking.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The answer to your question to me, is NO.

It makes no difference in the play of the hole.

If we have a green, with a bunker right up to the front of the green, it makes no difference if the bunker is circular, rectangular, square, triangular, has frilly plants around it or in it, or has three guys hiding in it who assault unwary golfers.

The bunker must be avoided, irrespective of its form.

My eye receives the signal presented by the bunker and targets, and my brain evaluates the intended shot that best suits the situation, which may or may not be pin directed, and which may be offensive in nature or defensive in nature.

The look of the bunker has absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process, shot and club selection.

It is the bunkers relative position to the intended TARGETS, and the bunker's configuration, not the style of the bunker that affects my play.

It's really quite simple.

Does a bunker with Merion's wraparound send a different signal and result in altering your play, versus that same bunker, scalped of it's wraparound grass at the top ?

To me it doesn't, it's just window dressing with respect to strategy, tactics and the PLAY of the hole.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I find your comments interesting.  

Let me ask a followup, if I might.  Let's use your example of the front right bunker and consider two scenarios to a pin tucked front right.

A) A relatively flat, shallow bunker with consistent, low cropped surrounds, proceeding uphill along the greens surface from the bunker.  It appears to be relatively benign, and in fact plays that way.

B) A deep, irregularly shaped pit with a steep face, and inconsistent surrounds where you might have a tight lie against packed sand or be in high fescue.  From the bunker surrounds, the green sweeps away from the golfer to the pin.  The bunker looks intimidating, and there is generally good reason for that fear in terms of playability.

Are you saying that those differences would play absolutely no consideration in your determination to fire at the pin or to the middle of the green?  

Isn't potential for recovery (low risk vs high risk) part of the assessment you make in determining how much you're willing to "take on" any particular hazard?  

Thanks for your answer.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

This has been one of the more illustrative threads to date. I knew there was a reason why Rich did not appreciate interesting architecture, he never sees it. He blocks everything out except for his target, tunnel vision form point A to point B. Like I said before Rich is the exception, not only are his powers of reason and intellect superior, he has super human focus.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

One of the greatest par 4's in the world, one of the greatest strategic holes in the world, is probably amongst the worst aesthetically.

And, the aesthetics, good and bad, don't affect the strategy and play of the hole one iota.

The Road Hole, the 17th at TOC.

If you've played it, over buildings, next to buildings, next to paths and man made walls, you'll understand what I'm saying about the strategy being independent of the aethetics.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

Interesting choice of example.... one man's trash is another man's gold... I find the "aesthetics" on The Road Hole absolutely wonderful!  Somehow I enjoy the blind shot over the hotel, the hotel on the right, the way the green sets against the road and wall behind, the wonderful view of the hotels/town/R&A clubhouse off to the left... all of that is part of what makes that hole great for me without a doubt.

I'm trying to think of a better example... but I'm at a loss.  Is there a truly great golf hole with nothing going for it in the way of aesthetics?  There must be... I'd love to hear other examples.  Road Hole doesn't work, not for me anyway...

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, Patrick...I'd agree with Huckaby here.

I think when some of us talk about aesthetic factors, we're more likely to frown on obviously man-made, unnatural looking, poorly integrated golfing features, surely much more than the walls, buildings, and pathways of the ole grey toon.  

I can't think of one ugly, man-made golfing feature on that hole, surely.  

Speaking of which, how would the strategy of that hole change if the road hole bunker was flattish, less steep, and about 2-3 feet in depth?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You're confusing aethetics with dimensions and configuration.

The moment you present one bunker as deep and another as shallow, it has nothing to do with the aethetics, only the relative physical properties of the bunker.

As I posted above, for me, relativity and configuration are the determining factors in strategy, and shot selection. not aethetics.  Physical properties, depth, width, and length have meaning, especially in relation to the intended targets,
grass and flowers don't.

But, let me try to convince you, Ken, Tom and others that strategy can be in the absolute, isolated from aethetics.

Take OUT-OF-BOUNDS, those small little white stakes in the ground.  Are you going to tell me that you will play a hole lined with out-of-bounds stakes, differently, depending on what's on the out-of-bounds side of the stakes ?

Or is the strategy on the shot determined by the absolute, the demarcation of out-of-bounds, not the aethetics ?

Let's take a perfectly square green, with water three feet from the front of the green.  Does it matter if the water starts with a bulkhead, a steep grass slope, or just water at the three foot mark ?  Do those variables change the strategy on the hole, your decisions and shot selections ?  Or, is the water an absolute, and as such, dealt with strategically, irrespective of the aesthetics ?

Let's go to the 6th at NGLA and the 17th at TPC.

Would you tell me how strategy is altered by aethetics ?

There is but one basic strategy, HIT THE GREEN.