UNFAIR golf course maintenance, NOT

[Garland Bayley]

JK,
Dang, that cart issue sounds unfair for your body type.  Good Luck!

Guys,

This is GolfClubAtlas.com, not CartBallAtlas.com.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

BCrosby:

We're too old to play dress-up? Even Mr. Rogers and the Pizza Delivery Girl?

Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

On this subject, Mark Fine and Forrest Richardson have written "If all the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes are conditioned away, what tests and challenges will remain? Aren’t those bumps in the road of life just like the hazards of golf? In many ways it is the triumph of overcoming setbacks that keeps us energized. Were it not for ordeals, it would only be a matter of time until we would become complacent and our lives (or rounds) filled with boredom."

This sounds to me to be more of an argument that short peoples lives are boring than one that counters the proposal to limb trees up a little higher. I want my life to be as boring as my short buddies.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I want my life to be as boring as my short buddies.-Garland

I don't think you'll have a problem with that.
 

[Garland Bayley]

I want my life to be as boring as my short buddies.-Garland

I don't think you'll have a problem with that.
 

Touche' Jim!
 

[Dan King]

Garland Bayley writes:
Where have you been? Do I get the honor of having brought you back to the board with my timely and important topic?

It’s been my life-time dream to be a lurker. I’ve been reasonably successful, but then Randy Newman starting singing in my ear and I can’t help myself.

I didn’t notice you responding to Chris Brauner’s point of thick rough favoring the bigger, stronger player and a big disadvantage to women and children. This seems to be a fair analogy and a much more common one than low branches.

Cheers,
Dan King

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
   --Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I'm simply pointing out that there are places where one type of player/person has an advantage over another type of player/person, and to try to prepare the playing field to eliminate such an advantage is neither doable nor even desirable.

Do you also think that rough should be cut low so that women, kids and others without the strength of a larger man aren't at an inherent disadvantage?

Do you think that bunkers should be shallow so that everyone, tall or short, be able to see everything out of them?

...

Well Chris, Dan insists I respond to your more of the same.

In case you haven't noticed the handicap system and separate tees have been set up to alleviate the differences between women, kids, etc. Also, how many times do you find men competing against women under identical conditions? For that matter, why are we going to the expense of creating and maintaining 5, 6, or more tees on golf courses? It seems that trying to create a fair playing field is a well established and accepted principle, so why the disagreement with my point?

I trust Mark Fine and Forrest Richardson always design for a single tee and that it was undue pressure from the townspeople (tar and feathers maybe) that made Forrest create multiple tees at the course I played that he built.

[CHrisB]

Garland,

"More of the same" what? You're asking us to take your proposition seriously and I'm one of the few here who is actually asking questions about it and not completely mocking or dismissing you (I hope you noticed that).

So I ask again, in a slightly different way--do you think that the rough should be cut low so that players without the strength of a larger player not be at an inherent disadvantage? I'm trying to flesh out your argument here.

Are there other maintenance-related situations that put one type of player at a disadvantage, or are not-high-enough trimmed tree branches pretty much it?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

"More of the same" what? You're asking us to take your proposition seriously and I'm one of the few here who is actually asking questions about it and not completely mocking or dismissing you (I hope you noticed that).

So I ask again, in a slightly different way--do you think that the rough should be cut low so that players without the strength of a larger player not be at an inherent disadvantage? I'm trying to flesh out your argument here.

Are there other maintenance-related situations that put one type of player at a disadvantage, or are not-high-enough trimmed tree branches pretty much it?

More of the same, either very rarely encountered, or not unequitably out the players control.

About rough - I prefer the Alister MacKenzie model over the US Open model. The US Open treatment of rough is an aberration that many would hope would go away. In other words, yes rough should be cut low.

As far as strength is concerned, that is something the player himself has some control over. Look what that scrawny Woods kid did for himself. I know I am growing shorter as I age, but I still don't have much control over that.

The reason I brought this maintenance related situation up is because it is the one I thought would be easiest to defend.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I know I am growing shorter as I age...-Garland

Problem solved

[Dan King]

Garland Bayley writes:
For that matter, why are we going to the expense of creating and maintaining 5, 6, or more tees on golf courses?

There is your answer. You should insist on your right to play from more forward tees since you are taller and have the risk of hitting into low-lying trees. From the more forward tee you could take less club and have less risk of getting under trees, mitigating the advantage of your shorter (but less endowed) competitor.

Cheers,
Dan King

Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.
 --Carlos A. Urbizo

[Garland Bayley]

Garland Bayley writes:
For that matter, why are we going to the expense of creating and maintaining 5, 6, or more tees on golf courses?

There is your answer. You should insist on your right to play from more forward tees since you are taller and have the risk of hitting into low-lying trees. From the more forward tee you could take less club and have less risk of getting under trees, mitigating the advantage of your shorter (but less endowed) competitor.

Cheers,
Dan King

Stoop and you'll be stepped on; stand tall and you'll be shot at.
 --Carlos A. Urbizo

Somehow I don't think that will fly with my opponents.
 

[Dan King]

Garland Bayley writes:
Somehow I don't think that will fly with my opponents.

I’d hate to misunderstand your position, so let me see if I have it right. You claim maintenance often isn’t fair in a tree-lined course because of your height. Your fellow competitors aren’t willing to let you use the built-in equalizer on the course (more forward tees) therefore you want a change in maintenance to make up for your fellow competitors denying you the built-in equalizer?

Rather than insisting on changes to maintenance (how high must they go? Your height? Michael Jordan height? Shaq height?) why not look for other fellow competitors willing to let you use equitable tees?

Cheers,
Dan King

If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would be dead.
 --Johnny Carson

[Garland Bayley]

Dan,

Just to make sure you understand, we are talking about Douglas firs, almost always in excess of 50 ft. Shaq's height wouldn't hurt them a bit. As for the young trees, I am willing to give them a few years grow in. Since they are Doug firs that's all they need since they grow so fast.

[Ken Moum]

About rough - I prefer the Alister MacKenzie model over the US Open model. The US Open treatment of rough is an aberration that many would hope would go away. In other words, yes rough should be cut low.

As far as strength is concerned, that is something the player himself has some control over. Look what that scrawny Woods kid did for himself. I know I am growing shorter as I age, but I still don't have much control over that.

I would  note that a short person, tall rough discriminates against me, even if I have relatively equal strength. The flatter swing plane I have to employ makes it much, much harder to extricate my ball.

Of course, I get some of it back when I can crawl under a tree and stand up to full height for my recovery shot.

[Garland Bayley]

Would anyone outside of this group be convinced of the arguments given here that fairness doesn't matter in the situation sited? I think not. I don't think I have found any such arguments here, so why should they? Mark Fine would claim that his and Forrest's book covers this, but they discuss the physics of the ball bouncing, etc. That has nothing to do with the physical stature of the players. No one refuted the analogy of making tall people bowl in a bowling alley with a ceiling so low that they were forced to stoop all the time, while others could take normal stances and make normal motions.

As an interesting side note, a week ago I mentioned this unfairness to our super who is nearly as tall as I am and referenced a short player that would be a regular adversary of his. This week on one of my excursions into the woods I noticed freshly removed branches from the lower ring of branching on the fairway side of the trees. This in an area our super can reach with his drives, but I cannot.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
There isn't a capable argument to convince anyone on either side of your question.

No one who believes, as you do, that tree limbs should all be trimmed to a height that allows for the tallest golfer to have as unencumbered a shot as a shorter player will be 'convinced' otherwise, even by a sane argument.
Same goes for someone who believes that the height of tree limbs isn't an issue worthy of consideration, that golf throws crap at you regardless of your stature and that you should just suck it and quit whining, will never be convinced by the inane argument that height should matter in maintenance of tree limbs. I am chuckling as I type this.

The game itself favors players of a certain stature, somewhere between 5'0 and 6'6, and anyone outside that range should think horse racing or basketball.

   

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
There isn't a capable argument to convince anyone on either side of your question.

No one who believes, as you do, that tree limbs should all be trimmed to a height that allows for the tallest golfer to have as unencumbered a shot as a shorter player will be 'convinced' otherwise, even by a sane argument.
Same goes for someone who believes that the height of tree limbs isn't an issue worthy of consideration, that golf throws crap at you regardless of your stature and that you should just suck it and quit whining, will never be convinced by the inane argument that height should matter in maintenance of tree limbs. I am chuckling as I type this.

The game itself favors players of a certain stature, somewhere between 5'0 and 6'6, and anyone outside that range should think horse racing or basketball.

   

At what point did I state my belief?

Your range of heights will be proven to be nonsense when the next 6' 8" "lion" comes along and breaks Eldrick's records.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I find that A high percentage of parkland golf courses are maintained in an unfair manner-garland bayley.
-I simply asked that golf course maintenance be nondiscriminatory.-gb
-It is fine by me. The maintenance would have been equitable-gb
-The concern I have raised occurs quite often on our parkland courses, and  does not provide the same course for all people-gb
-yadayadayadayadayadayadayada -gb

Your range of heights will be proven to be nonsense when the next 6' 8" "lion" comes along and breaks Eldrick's records.-gb

Your 'next 6'8" lion' will have to wait for the first one to show up.  

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

I may find or ask something. That doesn't state my belief.

Also, I believe 6' 8" lions have already shown up. They just haven't been skilled enough to break tiger records. But, then again the are many many, 5' 9" (midpoint of your range) panthers that haven't managed it either.

[Pete_Pittock]

Garland,
   Tall people have an advantage when they take relief, whether from having longer clubs (excluding the long putter), or having a bigger stance/ball triangle.
   Tall people have a power advantage.
   Tall people have an advantage when they can see over an obstacle others can't.
   If they limbed up to the level you want OSHA wold get involved because maintenance works would have to employ ladders

[Jim_Kennedy]

I may find or ask something. That doesn't state my belief.

Take a stance big fella, you either believe it's fair or unfair.

Also, I believe 6' 8" lions have already shown up. They just haven't been skilled enough to break tiger records. But, then again the are many many, 5' 9" (midpoint of your range) panthers that haven't managed it either.

You can believe what you will, there have been 6'8" and taller people around for a long time, none of which has made any impact on golf, let alone on Eldrick's records.

[Garland Bayley]

Pete and Tim,

Can you get your arguments together. Tim says tall golfers are at a natural disadvantage, Pete says they have a natural advantage.
 

What we are talking about here is a situation where the short person can hit a full shot of perhaps 200 yards, whereas the tall person is challenged to hit it half that far with any accuracy.

The rare occasion where I can see over something my short buddy can't pales in comparison. If it is a long shot, the ability to see doesn't matter. If it is a short shot, the short person can move to take a look and we are talking about mere inches difference in the result if there is any difference.

As far as tall lions, I was thinking George Bayer was 6' 8", however after checking I found he is only 6'5".

When I was young it was a foregone conclusion that no one over 6' would be great at golf. Now most of the greats are. My advice Jim, never say never.

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

6' 8" professional golfer Gordon Sherry has played on the European Tour and in the Masters since 2000. Your range of heights included 5' 0". Anyone that tall done this since 2000?

[John Kavanaugh]

Garland,

I told my son that if he can not break 100 he will never be great.  It is not fair that people who practice get better and learn how to swing on different planes for any given situation.