What do they mean when they say "You are making the hole easier!"

[mike_malone]

 I have had this objection brought up to me many times when I suggest tree removal to open up lines of play. But, I think it makes sense to ask these people to be clearer.  What do they mean by "easier". Too often we just say "It will better."


    Do they mean the average score on the hole is likely to be lower ? I think that is what most mean , but they offer no evidence since it seems self evident that the absence of a hazard will lead to lower scores.

   But,  in all the cases I can think of where changes have been made,the new opportunity enables the average player to ATTEMPT A SHOT THAT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO EXECUTE. A knockdown layup , which I think is not too hard to execute, has been replaced by a more heroic try. Most golfers cannot pull  off these shots , but will never admit it. The end result is much more fun and I think higher scores.

   So, I am not willing to concede it is easier because I focus on the shot and a harder shot to execute probably leads to higher scores.

    Has anyone kept track of the impact of "strategic" changes on the average scores ?

   I am willing to bet the scores are NOT lower.

[mike_malone]

 Bill,

 I have asked "real" course raters what the impact of tree removal has on the slope rating. While I have not gotten a clear answer, they have suggested it has little impact. They focus more on bunkers and elevation change .

     I do see the chance for a lower slope if one uses some formula that counts trees, but if they compared the SCORES for bogey golfers and scratch ones I don't believe there would be a marked change.

[Evan Fleisher]

Bill,

 I have asked "real" course raters what the impact of tree removal has on the slope rating. While I have not gotten a clear answer, they have suggested it has little impact. They focus more on bunkers and elevation change .

     I do see the chance for a lower slope if one uses some formula that counts trees, but if they compared the SCORES for bogey golfers and scratch ones I don't believe there would be a marked change.

That is an accurate assessment (from both a "real" and a "fake" rater here).  Unless a course undergoes some sort of wholesale change to their course...like a significant tree removal effort...removing a strategic tree here or there will not markedly affect a course's rating or slope numbers, especially since so much of these numbers are based on distance, with a small minority (say an 80/20 split) going to hazard locations, tree lines, fairway widths, ground slopes, elevation changes, green sizes, green speeds, etc.

[mike_malone]

 Mark,
     This is exactly what I see. The danger is ahead on these well designed holes . We removed trees on our #18 hole and the bunker on the right near the green gets much more use.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

Are you trying to pick a fight with Mr. Coleman again?    No matter how hard you try, he will always think harder w/only one option=better, vs. removing specific trees=more options and more fun (and on #12, more risks taken).

[A_Clay_Man]

Easier Schmeasier!
As stated above, it makes it better. Removing the trees opens up lines of play not dictated by the unsophisticated freshman who think they know something. It's also More fun for many more PEOPLE than just those who relish the predictable, long and down the middle. YAWN

Another example of how medal play mentality has made the sport more of a game.

[mike_malone]

 Scott,
      I would never start a fight with Mr. Coleman. It is no contest!

[mike_malone]

 Shivas,
       It is clear that the entire field of play to the hole in front of those trees  MUST be taken into account when evaluating the possible results.

   I think the advocates of "it is easier" focus more on the landing area.If the tree is gone it has to  be easier. I say "not so fast".

  I think that if you measured the example you gave, then the results might be different.

[mike_malone]

 Shivas and redanman,
     

   I think the comment that "it is a no-brainer;it's easier" needs to be questioned. The impact of players ACTUALLY  playing these "fuller" shots brings the weakness of our games into play. I'm confident that most golfers will fail more often than succeed.

       There have been several examples of  significant tree removal done around the country. Oakmont is the most dramatic. Did the handicaps go down there?

[A_Clay_Man]

From the depth and breath of this site:

The wide fairway at the 14th encourages the golfer to swing out in a positive manner.
Cramped courses with fairways sandwiched between rows of trees or houses
seem like a different and vastly inferior sport.

Shouldn't be to hard to figure-out who said that, and about what hole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have had this objection brought up to me many times when I suggest tree removal to open up lines of play. But, I think it makes sense to ask these people to be clearer.  What do they mean by "easier". Too often we just say "It will better."

I just had this conversation with two fellows who have been consistently good players for many years.

They perceive tree removal as broadening the areas of play.

When you point out to them how far removed the trees are from the centerline of the fairway, and the modern day shot pattern of good golfers, those areas remain mostly out of play and they acknowledge that.

Then you must explain that the wilder the shot, the more difficult the angle of attack and distance on the approach or recovery.

Most of the better golfers who oppose tree removal look at the trees as an impediment to advancing the ball for the higher handicap, and thus they perceive that their edge will be lost, forgetting that if that was the case, the handicap system would adjust and correct their perceived problem.[/color]

Do they mean the average score on the hole is likely to be lower ? I think that is what most mean , but they offer no evidence since it seems self evident that the absence of a hazard will lead to lower scores.

Yes, I think they think scores will go down, but so what, then so would handicaps and they'd be back on an equal basis again [/color]

But,  in all the cases I can think of where changes have been made,the new opportunity enables the average player to ATTEMPT A SHOT THAT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO EXECUTE. A knockdown layup , which I think is not too hard to execute, has been replaced by a more heroic try. Most golfers cannot pull  off these shots , but will never admit it. The end result is much more fun and I think higher scores.

I don't think that you'll see higher scores resulting from tree removal programs.  Your logic on that one escapes me.
Most golfers try to execute golf shots within, not beyond their knowledge, ability and comfort zone.  I doubt that tree removal will cause them to acquire more intricate shots.[/color]

So, I am not willing to concede it is easier because I focus on the shot and a harder shot to execute probably leads to higher scores.

Mike, get out the white flag.
Surrender to the notion that scores may be lower, but, that will in turn lower handicaps, equalizing the process.

And, if the tree removal results in the golf course being more prone to being affected by WIND, scores might not lower as fast as some believe.[/color]

Has anyone kept track of the impact of "strategic" changes on the average scores ?

If a club has exercised due diligence in determining the handicap of each hole, the results can be tracked if the club continues with record keeping or reevaluates the handicap on each hole after the changes.[/color]

I am willing to bet the scores are NOT lower.

I'll take you up on that bet[/color]

[Tom_Doak]

I always tell our consulting clients that the result of our suggestions may be that some holes get slightly easier and some get slightly harder, but that our primary purpose is to make all of them more interesting.

[Tags:]

Tags: