Bogey Golfers Got No Reason To Think . . .

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

That is honorable and I do appreciate the sentiment and understand it.  But my feeling is it's MORE narcissistic to think you matter that much to the field that it makes that big of a difference if you post a bad score.  Please, my friend:  some one has to finish last, that's just logic.  Some guys make up the bottom half of any field.  On top of this, there are always going to be players who marginally belong in an event at best - that's just the reality of tournament play outside of the very highest levels.  I know you don't want to go into any event knowingly not belonging:  that's a given, and nor would I.  But that is NOT what I am talking about.  Obviously if the requirements say 4 index or lower, you have to be playing to a strong, honest 4 or you don't do it.  This is an assumption.  I know you have that kind of game, and won't go play an event like that when you really are playing like a 9.

I guess our big difference is that I personally very much accept entering an event where winning is a pipe-dream, but making the qualification standard isn't... Man you have some different standards if chance of victory is your only standard.  You don't really mean that, do you?

If everyone treated events this way, fields would be small indeed.  Perhaps you'd favor that.  I sure as hell don't.

In any case this deviates from the main issue.

As for the churn, OF COURSE YOU'VE LOST IT!  That's the whole point of this:  for you to get it back!

God, this is getting to be sort of comical.  I have been through everything you say.  I too lost the churn - that's WHY it became more work than fun, among other reasons - I stopped caring one way or the other how I did, and golf became a chore to get through.  Good lord Dave, getting the churn while still maintaining the damn great perspective we've gained is what this is all about....

So yes, if you were to go into an event completely half-assed, with no churn, on top of having no chance for success, then of course there's no reason to play.

But that is NOT what is going to happen for you.  The churn will return - because you'll want it to, and for a different reason... it might be because you really think you can compete (like last summer) or it might be because you fear being THAT GUY... but one way or the other, the churn will return.

And then I know your game well enough that on any given day, the chance to compete is there for you.  You know it too.

OK, whatever, we've bastardized Moriarty's very worthwhile topic too far and perhaps we should take this off line.  You can just choose to learn from my experience which so EXACTLY mirrors yours, especially when our attitudes on the game are so freakin' identical, or you can choose to try and convince yourself that you don't need competitive play and it's not fun, kept in perspective. Hell, you know yourself far better than I ever can know you.  

I just continue to believe you are missing out on a lot of fun, and satisfaction.  

TH

[JESII]

You may be right Tom and I may still not be to the point where I would be ready to lower my expectations, but I think it would be very difficult to balance lowered expectations with the idea of playing competition for the purpose of feeling the gut churn. It may very well be possible, but difficult.

Dave

One thing to consider if your only reason for not playing competition is being "that guy". "That guy" earns that reputation or nickname much more for how they carry themselves on the course and not as much for how they play. From the sounds of it you would be great fun to play with and mindful of the etiquite (sp?) involved in tournament golf so you could not be "THAT GUY".

Sully

[THuckaby2]

When we did a 9 hole scramble at SH and David carried the team I saw some of what he is capable of.    

You meant the "Dream Team" (Shivas, Paul Turner, you and yours truly).  As I recall, we opened up a can.

Or was it just a dream?

Mike

Yeah, Mike, that was it.  Gimme 3 large Fosters and a couple of Gatorade and Jack Daniels', put me in a cart so I can zip around fast, and I can still play a little....

Adam:  you and Huck are looking at "that guy" 180 degrees backwards.  That's not about ego. It's about LACK of ego, or more accurately, keeping ego in check and thinking of others.  My ego would easily and glady let me be "that guy".  Thinking only of myself, I couldn't give a sh*t!  But it's not just me out there, is it?  

Do you dress like a bum when you go to church?  Why not?  

Wait, I have a better one...

As a parent, do you sit there in the pew with a wailing baby?  If you don't, why do you get up and take the kid outside?  Well, maybe some do it out of embarrasment.  I'll grant that.  But there are plently of others who do so out of courtesy to others and respect for the institution.  Is that so hard to understand?

Fair question.

Just remember, being THAT GUY is just one possibility of what can happen.  And if you really are playing that poorly and honestly don't belong in an event to that extent, then of course you don't do it, like I just said.

But that's all a given which I thought you understood.  Obviously your game has to be in such a state where IF it occurs that you turn out to be THAT GUY, it's a bad day or rustiness or whatever.

And then you remember that while people are annoyed by a baby crying in church, golfers are not annoyed by THAT GUY in nearly the same way... because while church might be interesting to the very devout, it's just never gonna hold the same weight as how competitive golfers care about their OWN games.  If it did, people would be so focused on the priest/minister that they wouldn't hear the baby... as the damn good golfers don't notice much about THAT GUY.

 

[Kelly Blake Moran]

JES II

I think it is somewhat important to point out that in the Armour story, his pupil I beleive hit his tee shot into another fairway.  There were trees between him and the green and when he pulled the 5 iron out Armour asked what he was doing and the pupil replied he had an opportunity to hit it on the green and make birdie. I believe his pupil was a big, athletic guy, maybe a former professional in another sport and could hit the ball a long way.   That is when Armour said you are also more likely to hit it into the trees and make worse, take an 8 iron and get it back into play, (thus his lesson which is highlighted in bold in the book, play the shot that makes the next shot easier)then maybe you can pitch up close to the hole and 1 putt for par or at worse 2 putt for bogey.  I do not know if under the situation you erroneously described if Armour would have had him lay up short of the green from the fairway.  The book is "Playing Your Best Golf All the Time".  It was my bible growing up.  Interesting tidbit Armour was blind in one eye, I believe he was blinded by mustard gas in world war I.

[THuckaby2]

You may be right Tom and I may still not be to the point where I would be ready to lower my expectations, but I think it would be very difficult to balance lowered expectations with the idea of playing competition for the purpose of feeling the gut churn. It may very well be possible, but difficult.

Dave

One thing to consider if your only reason for not playing competition is being "that guy". "That guy" earns that reputation or nickname much more for how they carry themselves on the course and not as much for how they play. From the sounds of it you would be great fun to play with and mindful of the etiquite (sp?) involved in tournament golf so you could not be "THAT GUY".

Sully

Sully:

VERY well said.  This sure as hell ain't easy and it's even tougher for Dave than it was for me, because I was always traditionally more of a field-filler than he was, no matter what he modestly says here.  But I do believe it can be done.  Oh man, the failures outweigh the successes big time... but the satisfaction does exist.  I've been down this road.

And you are so right on re Dave... this whole thought of him being THAT GUY is comical at best.  It makes for a good argument because in some reality it is POSSIBLE - just like it's possible that he'll get hit by a comet when he plays - but the liklihood is about the same.

THAT GUY compounds his lack of skill with poor etiquette and being a jerk.  Dave could no sooner do that than admit he loses an argument, given his profession.

 

I meant that as a compliment.  We'll see how he takes that.

 

[JESII]

Kelly

Thanks for the correction, I knew there was more to the story than I mentioned, but could not recall. A pretty good book to have as a bible, I read it once a few years ago and ought to find it again. My personal bible was On Learning Golf by Percy Boomer.

It sounds like you must agree with that philosophy (hit the shot that makes the next shot easiest), would you agree that an objective perception of ones own game is the key to making that philosophy work?

Sully

[THuckaby2]

Ok Dave:

1. You've been around, you know how to conduct yourself, and even if you're in the middle of shooting 85, your demeanor and way of handling it will show young, hot-shot, hot-tempered flat belly kids the right way to handle themselves.  Somebody did it for you once, now you have an obligation to do it for others...

But you're #2 is just plain wrong.  Remember the assumption is that your game is in state where you do belong.  I am absolutely NOT suggesting you ignore any rules of entry - in fact I said exactly this a few posts ago.  Please do read before you request things on silver platters - it's actually there for you if you care to read.

So hell no, you never overrule any rules criteria - please, it's actually insulting that you believe I'd suggest that.

Go back and read several posts ago.

So here's the real reason #2:

OK dammit, these guys practice all the time and are damn good, but I can get it going some time and I am gonna show them that slavish devotion to the game is NOT the only way to a good result.  I'm gonna show these flat-belly automotons that one can show good humor, be a good guy, and still play well.  Either that or I'll show them that one can be a good guy and not hurt the field, but that's back to reason #1.

That better?

 

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Sully,

Were you in Monster, Inc? The name is familiar. Anyway, an objective assessment is necessary, for me when confronted with a similar situation as described in the Armour book I am humble enough now to accept my situation and play for positon, but I still have wired in me the perception of what I could do based upon when I was a 16 year old, and if I go with that instinct now at age 44 I usually lose, so Armour's dictate means much more to me today than it ever did.  Furthermore, experience shows me when I look back on a good round, say I shoot an 81 which for me today is good, there always is a situation where I tried for more failed and added a couple of strokes to my score, had I stuck to the dictate maybe I would have broke 80 which beleive me today would be the biggest high I could get, other than watching my kids succeed.  Which leads me to an unrelated story, but last night my kid's travel b team, basketball, went into downtown Reading, tough place, to play the Police Athletic League team, mostly black, innercity kids, and I think it intimidated the hell of these white kids from the suburbs, they tried to play way outside of their abilities, and my kid's team was down 14-0 to start, but once they got over the fact that a black kid is just like them and you shouldn't be scared of them, they fought back to within 5 and eventually lost by 8.  I guess the point is that even going to big time, like a Shinnecock, you have to keep a cool perspective about your game, and don't panic, and you can play well, and shoot at Shinnecock what you shot at your home course.  There is that mental aspect that can adversely affect your tempo.  Incidently I am reading Tour Tempo and he mentions that Boomer's book is the longest continuously published golf book in print.  I have it but have not read it, is it good?

One side note which I am still amused by, as we walked into PAL two small, young black kids passed us and asked if we were going to the game, which we said yes and the one kid pointed in the direction of where we should go, and then one of them said "you guys are going down tonight", to which I responded "we'll see about that boy".  Later I told my wife how much I enjoyed that little kids spunk to, in my mind, jostle with a grown up white guy, it made it fun, and I admire that kind of irreverate spunkiness, but my wife thought it disrespectful to a grown up.  

[Brian_Gracely]

Schmidty,

At this point, you're old school to the flat-bellies.  So what you need to do is get in some practice with your old Hogan butter-knife blades.  Then show up on the first tee in Walter Hagen style and down a whisky, and then go out and play at least one decent round.  Tell stories of your golden years throughout the round, and then offer to host them for drinks immediately after the round.  

After that, there is no need to show up for the subsequent rounds.  Create a legend that has some mystery.  And then periodically show up at another event.

It only requires you to have game for one day.  How hard can that be?

[JESII]

Kelly

Sully's full name is, so my brother Mike gets full credit.

I think the most difficult part of improving at golf and most rewarding if you actually achieve it in one round is to play within yourself completely. This does not mean laying up at every opportunity, it means understanding the situation completely including the shot at hand, playing conditions and most importantly your own capabilities. This could mean being more aggressive from the fairway because you know your short game is better than your wedge game. These types of situations come up all the time and the person that handles these decisions the best has the best chance to score the best for their relative capabilities.

I cannot imagine a better instructional book than On Learning Golf if the goal is to enjoy the process of improving. It is an instructional book, however it is filled with really cool stories. It covers the mental and physical and mental challenges golf presents in an easy to consume and understand manner. Very highly recommended.

Sully

[THuckaby2]

Well Dave, that's pretty much what I said.  The only change I think you need is that your standards just remain too high for the realities of your life.  If you could lower those standards just a little, play for other reasons that I have already elaborated, then the good outweighs the bad.  I know this won't be that easy, but like I told Sully I do think it can be done and the end justifies the means.  But we've finally come full circle and I've covered it all already.

To put it concretely - again - only because I care:

You have the game to be a strong 2, or even better.  Remember last summer.

If and when that game returns, then there remains nothing wrong with entering events on what you called the "manure circuit", just for the competition, even if you don't really have a chance to win.  You damn well would have a chance to qualify for the next level if you catch lightning, and that's enough.  Add to it that you're gonna show the automoton flatbellies how to play and act properly with a sense of fun if you play well, or handle yourself properly and be an asset even if playing poorly, and voila, send in the entry.

This isn't that hard.  And it really remains not that big of a deal.  Try it, you will find it to be a positive in your golf makeup.  Of that I feel very confident.

TH

[Brent Hutto]

I think the most difficult part of improving at golf and most rewarding if you actually achieve it in one round is to play within yourself completely. This does not mean laying up at every opportunity, it means understanding the situation completely including the shot at hand, playing conditions and most importantly your own capabilities.

I can really only recall one time of doing that and it was a unique experience. As a double-digit handicapper I don't get to play under "real" competition but there was a one-day handicap tournament that I wanted to do well in. Since I had played the course a couple times before I had a plan for how to play each hole. I'd been mentally rehearsing dealing with just one shot at a time and not getting too up or down based on how I played each hole.

So I managed to stay in the proper zone for 4+ hours and played exactly to my handicap, net 72, even par. I ended up one stroke behind the eventual winner, solo second place but it was a very memorable experience. I can't recall any other times I've had that combination of heightened attention and total calmness (at least until I walked off the eighteenth green when I had a major attack of the shakes). I want to play in that mode again one day.

[THuckaby2]

Brent:

Great stuff.  Isn't that FUN?  Don't you want to do it again?  And how can something like that happen outside of competition?

That's what my friend Dave continues to miss/deny/forget....

 

BTW, that competition was every bit as real as any scratch event.  We all have our levels.  Of course net events get into the sandbagging issues, but I have zero problem with flighted events.  Thankfully, as I sink lower and lower in such....

TH

[TEPaul]

Did I not tell you collection of wonkers and yahoos that this young JES11 (Jim Sullivan Jr) would be a tremendous asset to this website's discussion group when he first arrived on here about 2-3 weeks ago? Yes, I most certainly did tell you that.

Now I'm telling you that you should listen very carefully to the things he's saying and his perspectives because it's more reasaonable and in the end benefical to the understanding of many of these subjects then the ways you collection of yahoos have always gone about dealing with these subjects.

Listen carefully to what he's saying and learn to come to the conclusion that he's righter than rain and he will lead all of you to those sunlit uplands of true architectural understanding including how best to view and use the entire area of strategies. If you don't do this you'll all continue to reside on here in that dark and dank and useless world of endless argumentation for arguments sake alone.

Listen to this young man and JSlonis too---they have very important and accurate things to say about golf's playabilities as they relate to architecture and its maintenance.

Again, if you don't do this you'll force me to write something much longer and far more poetic on this issue!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

I am completely convinced of the wisdom and worth of Sully here, and Jamie Slonis also.  But it does bear repeating.  I am clay and they are free to mold me.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Great stuff.  Isn't that FUN?  Don't you want to do it again?  And how can something like that happen outside of competition?

Yes, I want to do it as often as practical. To answer your second question, stuff like that can happen outside of competition but it doesn't. A fully-actualized human could produce the requisite energy for acheiving that kind of experience purely from within. However, most of us real folks seem to need the purely arbitrary presence of "calligraphy" to get it up. Odd, that.

BTW, that competition was every bit as real as any scratch event.  We all have our levels.  Of course net events get into the sandbagging issues, but I have zero problem with flighted events.  Thankfully, as I sink lower and lower in such....

The event I mentioned is a yearly get-together where pretty much everybody knows everybody. I think we've generally been fortunate not to be bothered by sandbaggers (partly because...and I know this is anathema to Shivas...there are no cash prizes) and the majority of the time net even par has been good enough to at least tie for first place. The first time I played in it the wind blew and I was too inexperienced to know what that meant. I was at net even par with two holes to play, tried a spectacular lob-wedge shot from a bad lie and ended finishing nine-nine on the last two holes. I didn't figure out until later that the winning score was (net) over par and I should have been in grind mode. I still finished third after throwing away a half-dozen shots on the last two holes.

[THuckaby2]

Brent:

Well said.  Yep, it does take outside forces for us to really feel the heat and get the thrill.  And that is odd, because it really shouldn't...

And re your tournament, oh well, it happens.  The cool thing is you learned from it.  Many people never do!

TH

[TEPaul]

"TEP:
I am completely convinced of the wisdom and worth of Sully here, and Jamie Slonis also.  But it does bear repeating.  I am clay and they are free to mold me."

Jeeesus, Huckaby, maybe you ought to hie on home to your wife and children or something. As smart and informative as Sullivan and Slonis may be with golf's playabilities, strategies and psychologies maybe they are not so touchy/feely that they really want to lay their hands on you and mold you like some chunk of soft, sensual clay!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Hmmm.. well said.  Of course I did mean this in the figurative sense, but still, those are scary words.

 

[Lou_Duran]

Quote from: Lou_Duran on Today at 12:01:36am
The more I see the way strategy is used in gca.com, the more confused I get.  I would think that if one chooses the optimal strategy, holding everything else equal, it would lead to shooting the lowest possible score.
 
DMoriarty,

I should have added something to the effect of "relative to the competition" to the last sentence.  I used to play several medal and match tournaments each year, plus numerous individual and team Nassaus, normally at match, but sometimes medal (front, back, and total).  The way one plays the golf course in those formats varies.  In medal play, the optimal strategy is not shooting the lowest possible score on each hole, but the overall lowest score for 18 holes relative to one's abilities.

I play over half of my rounds on courses that I have not previously seen.  Matches on those are typically a very low priority and only involve nominal bets.  Typically, par and course rating (I don't pay much attention to slope) are my points of comparison.  I do play some shots on the more famous holes (redans, biarritzs, capes, etc.) not so much to the strength of my abilities, but on the recommended or "fun" way that they are designed (typically, more on the ground than the air).

The example of CPC #16 is not a good one because it was a very rare opportunity to play that course and to face one of the world's most notorious holes.  If CPC was a course that was accessible to me on a regular basis, given that I had pulled the two previous approaches to the greens, my most common nemesis, I may have layed-up on 16 to salvage my score.  At least that's what shivas's mischaracterization of my approach to golf would have you believe.  I sort of doubt it because, admitedly, I have fallen captive to the concept of par, and on a par 3 I should be able to hit the green on my tee shot.

Perhaps some day I will free myself of such pitiful dependence much like Dan King apparently has, and be able to enjoy golf in my mind without ever playing it.  I can then employ all sorts of strategies and never again have to pay green fees.

shivas,

You are becoming another DMoriarty.  It must be the legal training.

BTW, if you learned to pronate your wrists and hands properly, you might be able to keep your drives in a familiar zip code.  But, I forgot, you don't give a damn and you're not trying to get better.  You're just trying to have fun, right?  Please!!!  Maybe Barney can pick up your fees to Katz through his benevolance foundation.  Come to think of it, take Barney and Moriarty with you.  I would pay just to listen in!

I still believe that one of the things that makes golf special to a large variety of people is that the game allows most of us the opportunity to improve.  This may not necessarily lead to shooting lower scores throughout one's life, but maybe making progress on some facets such as chipping and putting or course management.  Our fixation on the game could be due to such things as a small pleasure derived from grinding out an useful technique through practice.

It is probably cruel that golf always finds a way to provide intermittent positive rewards that keeps hope alive.  In reality, the game is so damned difficult that self-deception is probably necessary or it would die.  So, I will continue to believe that I can get better (though my scores, the objective evidence, do not support it), and, shivas, you can believe that you don't care how you play (now modified to what medal score you shoot).  The main thing is to keep playing/having fun, however we are able to achieve it.

Steve Lang,

The SAT analogy is way out there.  Do you know someone who actually does this?  Is he a lefty who loves to over-intellectualize everything?  
     

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm just not willing to play in a tournament unless I think that I at least have a shot at winning if I play great and I haven't shot anything remotely close to those kind of numbers in quite a while).    

Dave- The scores you shoot before the tournament, determine if you will score well on the day of the tournament?

By not playing in the tournament, because you don't feel you are up to it, only disables you from knowing and experiencing mental recovery.
Is there a rhyme or reason to why, and when, you golf well?  So who's to say it won't happen that day?

[Steve Lang]

Steve, in fact, what I'm saying is exactly 1000% the opposite.  What I'm saying is that I already took the SAT and I have no desire to keep taking it every day!  I don't want to take it again and again and again.  That, however, is what always playing for medal score is -- a never-ending SAT for golfers.  I'm sick of it!

[Shivas.. You misunderstood my tone.. I agree totally, that was my point]

Lou,

Perhaps out there,.. but those hounding Shivas have stuck tournament golf up on a really high pedestal, as the ideal, methinks too high, and in doing so have become a little zealous in their incessant preaching, repeat it enough and like all good propaganda some will believe it.. something like I remember from 40 years ago from teachers etc. in regards to SAT's.. the ultimate test, take it once or twice or three times if you have to, to gain entry to the highest level school..

If one scored x once, and life was good, I say move on, for better or worse, but at least keep on moving..

The only lefty I play with is English Jim, and he hasn't played in over a year since the 2003 Flamborough Open. (?sp) somewhere in Yorkshire, with his travel set of clubs and cheap Italian leather shoes.. but 05 may mark his return to common golf.. the taste for him, the churn, well it didn't taste right, and didn't do the trick..

[THuckaby2]

Personally I am just stoked to bejesus to read the terms "heaven to murgitroid" and "lather rinse repeat" in this august forum.  Damn Schmiddty is my man.  

But back to the shifted topic, well... Steve Lang writes:

"but those hounding Shivas have stuck tournament golf up on a really high pedestal, as the ideal, methinks too high, and in doing so have become a little zealous in their incessant preaching, repeat it enough and like all good propaganda some will believe it.."

and well I do believe he's referring to me.  So I shall respond.

Steve, please understand that I am NOT putting tournament golf on any pedestal.  Truly my intent is that it is just another thing to add to one's golf arsenal, one that can be really fun.  Dave and I just have very similar experiences in that for one reason or another, both of us got into it, both of us burned out on it, both of us gave it up and swore it off... and I have now just made the next step that he hasn't (YET!), that is to return to it with more wisdom, on a saner level, keeping it in context.

So I sure as hell don't put it on a pedestal - I consider it more a necessary evil in the quest for ultimate golf enjoyment, really.  And it sure as hell isn't right for everyone - in fact I'd counsel most golfers to avoid it for their greater sanity and happiness.

Hopefully this makes better sense.  And please also understand I am not repeating the same things over and over for my health.  Yes, Dave and I have seem to have come full circle, and I admitted that.  But for the most part I do believe it's been an interesting point/counterpoint.  Oh, it is applicable pretty much ONLY to guys like me and him who have travelled this road, but what the hell.

TH

[Steve Lang]

 

Huck, OK.. I can accept you saying that..

Then its all about what's needed to be a well rounded golfer, enjoying, learning, competing, improving, degrading.. The simple point is that all the verbs in the world do not have to be exercised/experienced by all, even those of similar species existing in common time and space.. to be content or whole.  You or Shivas obviously just have one simple gene sequence that's different, nothing more..

[THuckaby2]

Huck, OK.. I can accept you saying that..

Then its all about what's needed to be a well rounded golfer, enjoying, learning, competing, improving, degrading.. The simple point is that all the verbs in the world do not have to be exercised/experienced by all, even those of similar species existing in common time and space.. to be content or whole.  You or Shivas obviously just have one simple gene sequence that's different, nothing more..

Well said and I can buy that.  Golf is surely not one-size fits all.... which is again one of the many great aspects of it.

BUT... this gene sequence isn't limited to shivas and me.  There are many golfers we both know, both in and out of this forum, who have gone down this road.  Playing competitive golf at a young age isn't THAT unique... and for those who do this, burnout is a VERY real issue.  

TH