[Tim Liddy]

Pat and Jeff,

Are green contours the ultimate video game?  Complex, fun and the difficulty factor is equaled for all-in that the punishment for a bad shot is not too severe.  And if done correctly, it also strongly impacts the better golfer and his angle of attack. The Old Course surfaces again.

I agree that that fairness has devalued the game, but to blame women is very dangerous on many accounts.

Andy and Bob,

Steven Johnson’s book is full of statistics that support his argument.  His main point is that IQ scores have risen over the past 30 years.

[Andy Doyle]

Andy and Bob,

Steven Johnson’s book is full of statistics that support his argument.  His main point is that IQ scores have risen over the past 30 years.

Interesting - I'll have to check it out.

Andy

[Sean_A]

Andy and Bob,

Steven Johnson’s book is full of statistics that support his argument.  His main point is that IQ scores have risen over the past 30 years.

The Flynn effect (rising IQ) which you write of is highly speculative.  It is notoriously difficult to compare IQ (any standardized test really) scores across time because standardized tests are only (re)normailzed every so often.  Sometimes at 10 or even 20 year intervals.  The author should know that IQ tests are not designed to compare across time.  They are designed to comapare against a specific age group at a specific time.  Standardized tests validity is directly related to normalizing.

Ask Rich.  he went to Stanford so he should know all about IQ tests.

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"All great points.  It is important to distinguish that golf courses need to be more complex, not more difficult.

I could use help in defining this distinction: more interesting, more stimulating, more decision making, but not harder to execute the required shot-or different options for the necessary result. No one wants a 300 yard forced-carry over wetlands to a 10 yard landing area."

Tim:

I just noticed this thread. Very interesting.

I agree with you---I think golf courses and architecture should be more complex too but not necessarily more difficult.

What's the difference? I think, as you do, more complex in the sense of more demanding cognitively, not necessarily just physically difficult or more demanding.

But what actual architectural means could be used to do that?  

First, although the precept has been around forever in golf and architecture just make it a lot less likely that golfers either lose their golf ball or have to look for it. If you think about it that really wouldn't be hard to do architecturally it would just take a dedication on the part of architects to do it, even if in the face of resistance or criticism at first.

Really minimize the use of water in play and such things as rough that gobbles up balls forever.

Use bunker hazards and such more centrally and randomly but make them much smaller in relation to safe areas around them. Even if small something placed centrally can't help but get any golfer's attention cognitively and if it's small in relationship to what's safe around it it's so much more likely the golfer will take responisibility for his mistake. To do this kind of thing effectively architects may need to forego their concern with things like "scale" in an art principle sense.

While such things as bunker hazards may be smaller they should be architecturally far more "iffy" than most are now--eg if you happen to get up near a face you may need to go out sideways.

I may be completely wrong in this but I have a feeling that most golfers, particularly beginning ones, experience something of a psychological disconnect when they lose their golf ball. It may be very subliminal but it may be very strong.

Just watch any golfer careflully who's not all that experienced when they lose their ball. It's almost as if they always have to force themselves to regenerate and reconnect. After-all the golf ball is our only technical connection with the golf course itself, in the sense of "play".

Maybe I'm different but a round I played at Old Head in some really windy rough weather was one of the most memorable experiences I've ever had in golf. The friend I was playing with lost about two dozen balls and was sort of wandering around completely disconnected from the course and the round. It occured to me early on that I hadn't lost a ball and it became a mission to me not to. I actually shot a pretty good score that day in really tough whether but the most cognitive thing of all to me was not to lose that ball no matter what. To do that I had to really pay attention to that golf course. It was noticeably different that way. I did pull it off and it was so gratifying. I still have that ball.

I think there may be something to this that architects can find ways to tap into.

This is not the first time I've thought of this and how subliminally important it just may be. A few years ago in Ireland while playing that super firm and fast little Mallow course I decided to really test this out and so I went out there for a couple of days (I played alone at daybreak every day for a week) with just one golf ball.

It was just so cool and so completely engaging playing that course knowing if I lost that ball I'd have to quit and walk in. I didn't lose it and for those two days I just felt so gratified with those rounds. It was like I got the better of Nature that day or at least she didn't get the better of me because she didn't get my golf ball. The only thing in question---the only connection between us was not a score and not just a golf ball----it became that one single golf ball. It was really cool---really engaging.

It's interesting stuff this cognitive complexity.

[ForkaB]

Nice stuff. Tom, but be honest.  Have you EVER lost a golf ball?

[TEPaul]

"...but be honest.  Have you EVER lost a golf ball?"

That's beside the point, and you know what I mean.

What do you think would happen if a lot of golfers actually tried that? Do you think they'd experience an entirely different engagement with a golf course, its architecture, nature itself?

"I see you're home early, honey."

"Yep, Mother Nature got my golf ball on the 3rd hole today."

[TEPaul]

Actually Rich, you are the perfect person to try this. Go do it for me and tell us what the experience was like. If you lose it there's to be no searching in the bushes for another one either. If you lose it you'll just have to leave the course.  Do this, I guarantee the effect will be interesting for a lot of reasons. And if you find it makes you engage with the golf course far more than before, then what could be more interesting than that? This will take the theoretical or philosophical contest with Nature and make it the real thing.  

[ForkaB]

Tom

I've actually played all 6 rounds this winter with the same ball--a 3-year old Hogan Apex that looks like it had come out 2nd in a battle with a blind ferret.  I probably haven't lost it  because try as I might I can only carry it about 120 yards off the tee before it plummets to the ground like a hungry chicken hawk.  As I'm only playing 4-ball matches in the winter, my partner would probably end up lending me a ball if I ever lost the sucker.  I'll be looking in the Spring sales for a new sleeve.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm not just talking about playing a round with one ball, I'm talking about going out there with only one ball. Your partner cannot lend you one either. This is the way golf should be. When you lose your one golf ball you're just done for the day.

Once upon a time golf required giving up the hole if you could not finish the hole with the ball you played from the tee. This new wrinkle is merely requiring the golfer to not just give up the hole but give up the entire round and just go home.

This is the way it should've alway been. The only reason golf isn't that way any longer is these damn ball manufacturers pull a slich marketing maneuver on all of us.

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat and Jeff,

Andy and Bob,

Steven Johnson’s book is full of statistics that support his argument.  His main point is that IQ scores have risen over the past 30 years.

Tim,

Tim,

More years ago than I care to contemplate, one of my former wives joined Mensa and then challenged me to outpoint her. I took up the challenge and whopped her. What I am trying to say is that if she had a high IQ and couldn't balance a check book what does IQ stand for?

No one, I don't care how skillfully the statistics are massaged can tell me that the bulk of the population has a higher level of language and reading skills than thirty years ago.

Take away the words "You know" and 90% of the population would be mute.

Bob

[ForkaB]

Bob

I assume the grounds for divorce were "alienation of affectation."

[George Pazin]

One of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, Richard Feynman, reportedly had a tested IQ of 127.

One of my former workers, who stuggled to finish an associates degree at our local community college, told me his IQ was in the high 140s.

IQ is a meaningless measure. Meaningless. Potential means nothing if you're not willing to learn, to educate yourself, to think, to reflect, etc. All the playstations in the world aren't going to make the population more intelligent in any meaningful sense of the word.

More truth in this statement than Johnson's whole book:

No one, I don't care how skillfully the statistics are massaged can tell me that the bulk of the population has a higher level of language and reading skills than thirty years ago.

[Bob_Huntley]

Bob

I assume the grounds for divorce were "alienation of affectation."

Rich,

Something like that.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are green contours the ultimate video game?  Complex, fun and the difficulty factor is equaled for all-in that the punishment for a bad shot is not too severe.  And if done correctly, it also strongly impacts the better golfer and his angle of attack. The Old Course surfaces again.
Agreed.[/color]

I agree that that fairness has devalued the game, but to blame women is very dangerous on many accounts.

Why, it's the truth.

Just go to clubs on Sunday and look to see where the pins are located.   Then return on a number of Sundays and you'll see them in the same position.

Rather than build a new set of tees for a growing segment of the golfing world, golf courses chose to ameliorate or eliminate penal features.

As to the actions of Presidents, Green Chairman and Boards, pillow talk remains a powerful force that impacts golf courses.

Only recently, clubs have created senior tees to cater to that growing segment of golfers.

Look at most golf courses, they have three or more sets of men's tees and usually only one set of ladies tees.
Why is that ?
Is there no disparity in the play of women ?

When I was involved in a golf course project I created a totally new set of ladies tees, closer to the greens and with more benign angles of attack.

Doing so allows you to retain penal features for golfers who hit the ball longer, straighter and with less frequency, while at the same time providing a suitable challenge for different levels of woman golfers.

If the men have their red, white and blue tees, why shouldn't the woman have the same alternatives to choose from ?

The way women's golf has been handled architecturally has been wrong.   It's resulted in the eradication of wonderful features, on a piecemeal basis, when that could have been avoided by a more global approach, recognizing the disparity in the courses offered to each gender.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Bob:

You know, I just don't - you know - know what - you know - you're talking about - you know?

 

[sonofalawyer]

Wow, EVERYTHING BAD shows up everywhere.  Steven Johnson is my brother and, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, a serious golf nut.  I occasionally will direct him to an interesting thread on the board here and I know he checks out GCA periodically to gaze at the spread on Bethpage Black, his beloved home course.  He lives in Brooklyn.

I’ll try not to speak for my brother, but I will add I think he intended EVERYTHING BAD to be a voice of thoughtful dissent against the myriad folks piling on to criticize the state of popular culture.  Many of the people who rail against TV and videogames don’t watch or play them and wouldn’t know an X-Box from a cable modem.  

While there is much to debate about the content in today’s entertainment, there is no denying that today’s games/shows/movies are far more complex and interactive than those of twenty-five years ago.  Simply, in order to keep up with an episode of 24, your brain has to work a lot harder than it did during an episode of Dallas.  That is good news.

If you’re still skeptical, buy the book.  Someone needs to help pay for Steven’s dream membership at Shinnecock.  

Best,
Peter

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the insight, Peter.

I sure wouldn't dispute the notion that today's video games are a million times more complicated than the Atari and Intellivision games I had, but I don't think that necessarily translates to a more intelligent populace. You can have all the ability to think in the world, but if you shun that ability in favor of emotion-based demogaguery, it's not worth a whole heckuva lot.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I occasionally check in on TV shows so admittedly, and thankfully I am not a TV nut, but having sampled shows on a periodic basis if what is on TV is much improved and intellectually stimulating to some then all I can say is to each his own, enjoy.  I will thankfully remain on the sideline and encourage others to do so, for it is not a very appealing world in that little box.  

Patrick,

 I have on at least 3 occasions proposed a second set of ladies tees in the 5000 yard range and each time had my head handed to me on a plate by the ladies.  There was even a 2 page petition written against me accusing me of employing tactics that would ensure that there would never be another Michele Wie.  

[Mike Hendren]

Thanks for the insight, Peter.

I sure wouldn't dispute the notion that today's video games are a million times more complicated than the Atari and Intellivision games I had...

George,

I gotta admit, we've come a long way since:


     |
             
                           o
                                                |

Ya know?

Mike

[Bob_Huntley]

Being  a whizz at video games, no matter how complicated they may be, matters not one iota when asked to write a simple precis of one's academic accomplishments when applying for a job.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

I too took some fire for creating a second, more benign set of ladies tees.

But, the tees were already constructed and in play.

The heat came from the better women players, and those players that took pride in the devilish difficulty in the golf course from the back tees.

I also tried to change the culture by merely identifying the tees as the greens, yellows, reds, whites and blues.

After about a year, several members approached me and told me that they had made a birdie or a par on a given hole, the first one they had had in 5-10 years.

They delighted in playing tees that afforded them a reasonable challenge, one that they could aspire to meet, and one that made the game enjoyable for them again.

Older members also began playing the forward tees and found a renewed interest in the game.

I've never quite understood the mentality of golfers that wouldn't want to forge a reasonable challenge for the less skilled, vis a vis, forward, more benign tees.

There's an element of golfer that delights in the difficulty of their golf course, and that's okay from the championship tees, but, it shouldn't be the pervasive mentality for the other sets of tees.

What were their objections to the additional sets of ladies tees ?

[RJ_Daley]

George P and Sir Boab,  I remember seeing this anecdote somewhere else, and found it described in WiKipedia quotes.  I think it describes the division of mechanical skill/intelligence and true creative genius intelligence.  I saw an oriental fellow on Jay Leno the other night put a discombobulated Rubic's cube together in 18 seconds.  But earlier that eve, I also watched the show on the writings and deeds of John and Abigale Adams, on PBS.  Maybe the Rubic's cube kid will collaborate to launch a great world government someday, but I kinda freakin doubt it...

"...I remarked to Feynman that I was impressed by Steven Hawking's ability to do path integration in his head. Ahh, that's not so great, Feynman replied. It's much more interesting to come up with the technique like I did, rather than to be able to do the mechanics in your head. Feynman wasn't being immodest, he was quite right. The true secret to genius is in creativity, not in technical mechanics.

    * Al Seckel gave an anecdote concerning Feynman's perspective on Hawking's ability to do the mathematical equations that his work requires in his head."

[Doug Siebert]

One of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, Richard Feynman, reportedly had a tested IQ of 127.

"To win a Nobel Prize is no big deal, but to win it with an IQ of 125, now that's something."  -- Richard Feynman

[Jim Nugent]

I also read that scores on I.Q. tests have risen.  The figure I heard was 15% to 20% during the 20th century.  This does not necessarily mean people are smarter.  It might mean they are better at taking the I.Q. test. (If as George Pazin points out we can compare results across time).  

There was a whole lot of evidence that I.Q. correlates directly with success.  Higher I.Q. groups repeatedly have been shown more successful in business, happiness and life.  Wonder if there is any ongoing research into this, to see if that still holds with the newer generations.    

[Doug Siebert]

I know if I didn't have an abnormally high IQ, I wouldn't be as successfully as I am despite being the prototypical Generation X slacker

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()