[John Mayhugh]

Isn't pace of play enough of a problem already?

If everyone plays from the same set of tees, won't rounds get slower?  It seems likely that someone used to playing from tees with a total yardage of 6000 and they move back to 6600 (or whatever that "correct" yardage is), won't they take more shots?  Don't more shots = more time?

I understand the goal and appreciate it.  If I'm playing with someone who prefers forward tees, I'll almost always join them. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't pace of play enough of a problem already?

It's certainly become a problem.
However, it doesn't appear to have been a problem when only one or two sets of tees were employed.[/color]

If everyone plays from the same set of tees, won't rounds get slower? 


I don't believe that they will.
Today, the golfers playing from the forward tees must wait, out of play, for the golfers to hit from the back tees.  Then they all have to walk forward, where the golfers playing from the back tees have to wait for the golfers to tee off from the forward tees.  That's more time consuming than if they all teed off from one set of tees.[/color]

It seems likely that someone used to playing from tees with a total yardage of 6000 and they move back to 6600 (or whatever that "correct" yardage is), won't they take more shots? 

They'll certainly take more club.
Whether they take more shots is dependent upon how the yardage is distributed.  But, taking a few more shots doesn't slow up the game.
If I play in 3:20, it doesn't matter whether I shoot 70, 75, 80 or 85.
My pace of play is fairly constant.[/color]

Don't more shots = more time?

Not necessarily.
And, that's not where slow play comes from.
If you watched Bay Hill on Sunday, Johnny Miller commented on how long a player was over his ball on # 17 tee.  He said words to the efffect that a lot of things can go thru your head when you take that much time.

When guys read putts from virtually every angle and wait until it's their turn before doing so, that's what takes a long time.

When a guy has played a course for 30 years and labors over which club to hit from a spot he's been in 1,000 times, that's what takes a long time.

Slow play is a pattern, a culture, it's not impacted by five more strokes.
It's from watching too much TV and thinking that the extra time will result in substantively improved results.[/color]

I understand the goal and appreciate it. 
If I'm playing with someone who prefers forward tees, I'll almost always join them. 

Depending upon the circumstances, so will I.[/color]

[Andy Troeger]

Andy Troeger,

Define enjoyment.

I lost 80 yards on my drives, distance and loft on my irons and I enjoyed the game as much, if not more than before.

You're confusing enjoyment with scoring satisfaction.

Patrick,
Enjoyment in a simple definition is simple having fun or a pleasant time while playing a round of golf. As I said, I credit you with being able to separate it from scoring satisfaction, however, I think the majority of golfers struggle with separating the two.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

I'd agree.

How many times have you heard a golfer, after the round, list the areas where his score could have been lower, never once mentioning the areas where his score could have been higher.

Golfers tend to focus on the bad breaks, either ignoring or taking for granted the good breaks.

Golf is neat in that we examine its micro nature, the shot by shot experience, yet we tend to highlight its macro nature, the score for the round.

One of the most exhilarating rounds of my life was at Seminole when I hit five of the most incredible fairway bunker shots of my life.

Usually, I'm a very straight driver and shouldn't be in those bunkers, but, I was having an off day on the tee and in general, but, those five fairway bunker shots were world class and made my day despite my score not being up to par.

So, it depends upon what you want to extract from the game.
If you context what you extract solely in the realm of score, you're missing so much of what golf has to offer.

Would you really care about your score if you beat Ran Morrissett in a match, watched him suffer thru the day, and retained bragging rights until your next match.  Does it get more priceless than that ?

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick,

As much as you may enjoy the creative use of your 3-wood, I believe you are in the minority of golfers, most of whom don't want to be hitting a bunch of 3-woods into par 3's and 4's. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

I agree.

Most want to hit wedges.

Few relish the challenge of hitting long irons or fairway woods.

The game, or rather the masses that play it, have become soft.

Many years ago, on the 14th hole at Crooked Stick, I asked Pete Dye why he was making certain changes to the golf course.  He asked me if I used my 2 or 3 iron when I played Winged Foot and other courses.  I responded affimatively.
He then said that he was making those changes so that the Pros would have to hit 2 and 3 irons, something that was becoming a thing of the past.

That was right before the PGA where Daly won.  Prior to the subsequent boom in hi-tech.

Hitting a good long iron is hard, but should we dismiss hard shots ?
Should we replace them with easier, softer shots to make the game more appealing to the masses ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
A friend and I were recently playing as a twosome, following a foursome around. These guys were playing one tee up from the tips. At no time did any one of them hit a green in regulation, and not just from innaccuracy. On a par 3 of 207 yards, with a 1/2 club headwind, they all swung drivers and they all came up woefully short. 

It was a beautiful day and we were both on vacation so we really didn't care how long we were out there. When we made the turn we started to time them, not every shot, just their third shots on par 4's. On those 5 holes alone these four guys wasted 25 minutes in 'extra' shots that may or may not have been necessary if they were up at the tees they should have been playing. Another consequence: these guys were still lingering in our go/no go range and we were forced to wait a longer time to hit our tee shots. Had they been playing from the 'proper' tees this wouldn't have happened.

And sooner or later pace of play always goes south because these macho men will eventually start overreaching on every shot, and then God only knows where their ball's will be headed. More time wasted.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

I think you are missing the point.  I'm talking about fairway wood shots which are just to advance the ball, and will only lead to another fairway wood shot.  It doesn't compare to any shot that you or I would play in a typical round.  If you play a 3W now (or in the 60s, when you are right I did not play because I was not alive for most of it ) you are either aiming at the green or setting up an approach which is most likely played with a wedge or short iron so position would be important.  Additionally, you are a very good player who knows how to think strategically and have the talent to execute on your strategy successful to reach your desired location and/or playing angle often.

I think you ascribe a bit too much talent to the people hitting sub-150 yard drives if you think you are concerning themselves with optimal position and thinking strategically.  The majority just want to stay in the short grass, and on their first 3W of the hole played from the tips would only be setting up another 3W (and maybe one or two more after that if they played a hole of 600+ yards)  I'm sure there are exceptions there, but if you pick a random person playing from the front tees my stereotype will be correct (heck, I think my stereotype here might be correct even for the tips at some courses )

I personally have no problem with hitting long approaches, I love a course that makes me do that -- I don't want to hit wedge into every green.  But I know I would not enjoy playing a 1001 yard hole over and over again.  A few times perhaps for the novelty and to see if I could figure out whether I could get home in four shots or not, but it would bore me much more quickly than a typical par 3, 4 or 5.  Sure, when the company is good playing that hole would be enjoyable, in the same way that playing a Doak 0 with more weeds than grass is enjoyable if you are with the right people.  But I don't think either of us is seeking out a Doak 0 to play, we'd rather play a course that interests us AND play with people whose company we enjoy.  So would I play that 1001 yard hole with you, Ran and TEPaul over and over again.  In a second, hell yes.  Given the choice, would I much much rather that we played say Riveria's 10th, ANGC's 15th or any hole at TOC or NGLA over and over again?  I think you can guess the answer

I'm not hung up on par, I'm hung up against the idea of having to constantly make shots that are only advancing the ball down the fairway.  Hasn't this group endlessly debated the merits of what makes a good three shot par 5, and interest and strategy in the second shot was paramount?  Despite that, the judgement of many is that it is very difficult to make a good three shot par 5 and many more fail at this compared to those who succeed.  In a course where shorter hitters would be playing from the tips, every par 4 is a three shotter, some holes are four or even five shotters.  Is there an architect anywhere who can make an interesting five shotter, save those who are lucky enough to have very interesting land upon which to build it such as that found at TOC, NGLA or ANGC?  What about your typical bargain rate Florida resort course, built on land with a total elevation change of only a few feet?

[Phil Benedict]

Phil,

I agree.

Most want to hit wedges.

Few relish the challenge of hitting long irons or fairway woods.

The game, or rather the masses that play it, have become soft.

Many years ago, on the 14th hole at Crooked Stick, I asked Pete Dye why he was making certain changes to the golf course.  He asked me if I used my 2 or 3 iron when I played Winged Foot and other courses.  I responded affimatively.
He then said that he was making those changes so that the Pros would have to hit 2 and 3 irons, something that was becoming a thing of the past.

That was right before the PGA where Daly won.  Prior to the subsequent boom in hi-tech.

Hitting a good long iron is hard, but should we dismiss hard shots ?
Should we replace them with easier, softer shots to make the game more appealing to the masses ?

I think you are correct that the phenomenon of multiple tees is an attempt to broaden the appeal of the game; newer and resort courses are running out of colors for tees.  But it's spread to private clubs as well, which are theoretically not supposed to be appealing to the masses, but with competition for members being what it is they have to.

You and I enjoy the challenge of long par 3 or 4 but we're probably in the minority.  At my course less than 10% of the men can reach the longest par 4's in two, and the other 90% don't want to play them as 3-shot holes.

One thing I've noticed at daily fee or resort courses is that the 7000-yard tees make for a more interesting driving experience, because the bunkers tend to come into play for my tee shots (~280 yards on average), whereas I can fly them from the 6600 yard tees.

[Doug Siebert]

Phil's post reminds me of another reason for the multiple sets of tees.  The USGA handicap system.  For those golfers who want to a maintain a handicap, but don't want to play some par 4s as three shotters they need a set of tees designed around the distance they hit the ball.  That's true whether due to Patrick's "par" mentality, not getting excited by the thought of more par 5s, or whatever.  If they didn't feel the need to maintain a USGA handicap they wouldn't mind playing on a longer set of tees, and then moving up on a few holes where its a problem.

There's a course in town that's got white tees that are just under 5800 yards.  Due to my dad and his friends having a seeming bias against yardages under 6000 yards not being a "real" golf course, they play the blue tees, which are 6300 or something like that, one up from the tips.  They can't reach half the par 4s, but they are used to that and don't have an issue with it.

But the par 3 9th hole is a real problem for them, because it is 210 yards into the prevailing wind, with a swamp just short of the green that must be carried.  There is a kind of bailout short left but it doesn't leave a whole lot of margin for error (there's OB left, and the water is also found long and right....from the tips it is 245 and probably one of the tougher par 3s I've ever seen!)  After scoring one too many big numbers they decided to play just that one hole from the white tees which are 166 yards.  My dad was worried about being able to post his scores, so I told him he could just subtract 0.2 from the course rating to account for the reduced distance and still post it.  He thinks that's cheating but as I understand it that's pretty much how you are supposed to account for that sort of thing.

Its too bad the USGA web site doesn't have an option to break down the ratings per hole/tee so you could form your own composite course and get the web site to spit out a rating/slope.  That would probably help a lot of people out!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Phil,

Agreed.

At the private club level, since every full member pays the same dues, there's a clamoring to be presented with a similar product, ergo multiple tees.

But, the real culprit with respect to multiple tees is the concept of par in terms of but one finite number.

Remove that concept and everyone could play from the same tees and be content.

[Phil Benedict]

When did private clubs start using multiple tee sets?  My course is 85 years old and has 4 sets of tees (blue, white, ladies, and yellow, which the old codgers all resist using).  I've always assumed that at least the first three sets were always there, but have no way of knowing whether this is true or not.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
I haven't looked, but I wonder if the 1934 Ct aerial of your course would have enough definition to answer that for you?

Pat,
How could everyone be content when the whole course would be held up as soon as 'those guys" I mentioned in my earlier post show up?
We have a couple of holes with flexible 'pars', but even if you relieved players of the notion of 'par', you still couldn't add the yardage that shorter players need to make it fun for anyone following them. 

Once again, even if they are relatively speedy they will always be 'in range' of those on the tee when they are hitting their third shots from the fairway and our timing of such players while in Fl. proves this.

[J Sadowsky]

Phil,

Agreed.

At the private club level, since every full member pays the same dues, there's a clamoring to be presented with a similar product, ergo multiple tees.

But, the real culprit with respect to multiple tees is the concept of par in terms of but one finite number.

Remove that concept and everyone could play from the same tees and be content.

That's not really true.  Ignoring forced carry issues (like on many par 3s), there's something completely unfun for a 20 handicap to play a 220 yard par 3.  What is he supposed to do, 9 iron-9 iron?   Regardless of the concept of par, given a decent long par 3 (not too much danger, bump and run), the 20 handicap likes a challenge too - he'll want to be able to play from somewhere where he can use a mid-to-long iron, and try and execute something.

If you're right, it should work the other way too, no?  Would you be happy if you got a chance to play some course, then found out you had to play it from the ladies' tees, so there's no need to execute any of the interesting challenges to said course?

[JESII]

Pat,


I have read much of this thread, but not every word so if I missed it I apologize...hell, I may've read it and missed but that's another story.

I think a fairly equal balance of shots on or around the green with those from the tee and fairway is a reasonable and enjoyable way to play the game. I would bet that the majority of people playing the game take no more than 60% of their shots either inside or outside of, say 30 yards from the edge of the green in a round of golf.

In other words, if someone is going to shoot 100, I bet they hit no more than 60 shots to get near the green...or...no less than 40.

The idea of playing from one tee would change that at both ends of the spectrum...the good ball strikers (relative to their handicap) would lose this balance if a short course were played and the good chippers and putters (relative to their handicap) would have many more long shots if a long course were played.

Returning to one tee is a nice idea whose time has passed.

Are you taking your afternoon nap? Better wake up, the early bird specials begin in just a little while...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

That's not really true. 

Ignoring forced carry issues (like on many par 3s), there's something completely unfun for a 20 handicap to play a 220 yard par 3. 

A 20 handicap ISN'T supposed to hit a 220 yard par 3 in regulation.
That's the problem with many participants, they present the high hancappers game in the context of the shot making ability of the scratch player.

As to the 220 yard Par 3, how did that hole get to 220 yards ?
I'll bet it didn't start as a 220 par 3 if it wasn't built in the last 50 years.

As to forced carries, I've played a decent amount of golf over the years and have rarely run into forced carries with no alternatives.

Could you name five holes with heroic forced carries so that I can get a better understanding of your premise ?[/color]

What is he supposed to do, 9 iron-9 iron?   

I can tell you what that 20 handicapper ISN'T supposed to do.
And, that's hitting the green or anywhere near the green in regulation.
He's a 20 handicapper, not a 2.[/color]

Regardless of the concept of par, given a decent long par 3 (not too much danger, bump and run), the 20 handicap likes a challenge too - he'll want to be able to play from somewhere where he can use a mid-to-long iron, and try and execute something.

Since when do 20 handicappers "execute" something ?

Why should he have a right of entitlement to hit a club he's comfortable with ?

Let him take out his driver and swing away.

That's what the architect intended.

I'd hit a choked down 3.wood or a driver into the wind, why shouldn't your 20 handicapper ?[/color]

If you're right, it should work the other way too, no? 

NO[/color]

Would you be happy if you got a chance to play some course, then found out you had to play it from the ladies' tees, so there's no need to execute any of the interesting challenges to said course?

Your premise is absurd and flawed.

Please use examples that are realistic.[/color]

[J Sadowsky]

That's not really true. 

Ignoring forced carry issues (like on many par 3s), there's something completely unfun for a 20 handicap to play a 220 yard par 3. 

A 20 handicap ISN'T supposed to hit a 220 yard par 3 in regulation.
That's the problem with many participants, they present the high hancappers game in the context of the shot making ability of the scratch player.

As to the 220 yard Par 3, how did that hole get to 220 yards ?
I'll bet it didn't start as a 220 par 3 if it wasn't built in the last 50 years.

As to forced carries, I've played a decent amount of golf over the years and have rarely run into forced carries with no alternatives.

Could you name five holes with heroic forced carries so that I can get a better understanding of your premise ?[/color]

What is he supposed to do, 9 iron-9 iron?   

I can tell you what that 20 handicapper ISN'T supposed to do.
And, that's hitting the green or anywhere near the green in regulation.
He's a 20 handicapper, not a 2.[/color]

Regardless of the concept of par, given a decent long par 3 (not too much danger, bump and run), the 20 handicap likes a challenge too - he'll want to be able to play from somewhere where he can use a mid-to-long iron, and try and execute something.

Since when do 20 handicappers "execute" something ?

Why should he have a right of entitlement to hit a club he's comfortable with ?

Let him take out his driver and swing away.

That's what the architect intended.

I'd hit a choked down 3.wood or a driver into the wind, why shouldn't your 20 handicapper ?[/color]

If you're right, it should work the other way too, no? 

NO[/color]

Would you be happy if you got a chance to play some course, then found out you had to play it from the ladies' tees, so there's no need to execute any of the interesting challenges to said course?

Your premise is absurd and flawed.

Please use examples that are realistic.[/color]

You completely missed the point.  Your argument originally was that without par, you could have one set of tees, and the course would be fully playable by all.  My response was to simply point out that this was not true - the course would not be at all enjoyable to play by higher handicappers, whereas the simple addition of different tees could make the course fun. 

You only continued to miss the point by saying that my last point was absurd.  It wasn't meant to be realistic, it was meant to show you what its like for a higher handicapper to play golf., and have some empathy.

If you're only point is that golf shouldn't try to cater to higher handicappers, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  But if your point is that higher handicappers can equally enjoy a golf course playing from the tips, if only they would ignore the concept of par, that is simply false.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

That's not really true. 

Ignoring forced carry issues (like on many par 3s), there's something completely unfun for a 20 handicap to play a 220 yard par 3. 

A 20 handicap ISN'T supposed to hit a 220 yard par 3 in regulation.
That's the problem with many participants, they present the high hancappers game in the context of the shot making ability of the scratch player.

As to the 220 yard Par 3, how did that hole get to 220 yards ?
I'll bet it didn't start as a 220 par 3 if it wasn't built in the last 50 years.

As to forced carries, I've played a decent amount of golf over the years and have rarely run into forced carries with no alternatives.

Could you name five holes with heroic forced carries so that I can get a better understanding of your premise ?[/color]

What is he supposed to do, 9 iron-9 iron?   

I can tell you what that 20 handicapper ISN'T supposed to do.
And, that's hitting the green or anywhere near the green in regulation.
He's a 20 handicapper, not a 2.[/color]

Regardless of the concept of par, given a decent long par 3 (not too much danger, bump and run), the 20 handicap likes a challenge too - he'll want to be able to play from somewhere where he can use a mid-to-long iron, and try and execute something.

Since when do 20 handicappers "execute" something ?

Why should he have a right of entitlement to hit a club he's comfortable with ?

Let him take out his driver and swing away.

That's what the architect intended.

I'd hit a choked down 3.wood or a driver into the wind, why shouldn't your 20 handicapper ?[/color]

If you're right, it should work the other way too, no? 

NO[/color]

Would you be happy if you got a chance to play some course, then found out you had to play it from the ladies' tees, so there's no need to execute any of the interesting challenges to said course?

Your premise is absurd and flawed.

Please use examples that are realistic.[/color]

You completely missed the point. 

No I didn't, I just disputed your points.[/color]

Your argument originally was that without par, you could have one set of tees, and the course would be fully playable by all.  My response was to simply point out that this was not true - the course would not be at all enjoyable to play by higher handicappers, whereas the simple addition of different tees could make the course fun. 

But, the course would be fun, it's only the introduction of the concept of par that makes playing from one set of tees seem tedious.[/color]

You only continued to miss the point by saying that my last point was absurd.  It wasn't meant to be realistic, it was meant to show you what its like for a higher handicapper to play golf., and have some empathy.

That's equally flawed.
I know what it's like for a high handicapper to play golf, I was one a long time ago and just a few years ago.  As to empathy, without par, none is necessary.  And, I don't suffer those who whine about how difficult golf is, well.[/color]

If you're only point is that golf shouldn't try to cater to higher handicappers, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  But if your point is that higher handicappers can equally enjoy a golf course playing from the tips, if only they would ignore the concept of par, that is simply false.

Not only is the concept valid, but, it existed for centuries.

As to the tips, I never stated that everyone should play from the tips, where did you get that notion from ?  Could you cite where I stated that ?

Lastly, I addressed and answered everyone of your points and questions, you never addressed or answered one of mine. 

Could you answer the questions I posed to you.
[/color]

[J Sadowsky]

Patrick, no.  Just, no.

You have to be honest about what you're doing.  You are saying for there to be one set of tees - the tips, I originally assumed, but maybe you meant "the tees I happen to like."  You are telling a 20 handicapper to play a course that was meant to be played in 1 shot in 2 because he can't do it.  This has nothing to do with par.  The hole was designed to play a certain way, to make certain interesting shots possible.  If the high handicapper can't execute those interesting shots, making him execute other, uninteresting shots, is going to bore him.  None of this has anything to do with par.  For my argument, par is irrelevant - you're using it as some boogeyman.

I didn't think your argument merited a point by point response, because it missed the point.  But for your own satisfaction?

"As to the 220 yard Par 3, how did that hole get to 220 yards ?

It was built 5 years ago.  It's Oakmont.  Not sure why it matters. 

Could you name five holes with heroic forced carries so that I can get a better understanding of your premise ?

Grand National Lake, 3rd Hole (175 over water)

Medinah #3, 2nd Hole (192 over water)

Capitol Hill (Judge) #16 (256 over water)

Point O Woods #9 (192 over water)

Crooked Stick #6 (183 over water)

"can tell you what that 20 handicapper ISN'T supposed to do.
And, that's hitting the green or anywhere near the green in regulation."

The average 20 handicapper hits 4-5 greens in regulation.

"Since when do 20 handicappers "execute" something ?"

He's certainly supposed to try.  And enjoys it, even if he doesn't succeed as much.

Why should he have a right of entitlement to hit a club he's comfortable with ?

He's not entitled to anything, he's not entitled to play golf.  The point I was trying to say, is if you do something that makes golf miserable and boring to him, he's not going to play golf.  As I said, if that's what you WANT, then we just have different goals.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick, no.  Just, no.

You have to be honest about what you're doing. 

I think you'll find that that's a common element in my themes, threads and posts.[/color]



You are saying for there to be one set of tees - the tips, I originally assumed, but maybe you meant "the tees I happen to like." 

I NEVER stated that the one set of tees should be the tips, that's your erroneous conclusion.[/color]

You are telling a 20 handicapper to play a course that was meant to be played in 1 shot in 2 because he can't do it. 

I thought it was obvious to everyone that a 20 handicapper's game differs dramatically from a 0 handicap's, and that the two should NEVER be equated.  Why do you feel the need to put them on an equal footing ?[/color]

This has nothing to do with par. 

Of course it does, it has everything to do with par, you just don't understand the concept of playing from one tee.

For years and years, ALL golfers teed off from within ONE club length of the cup on the hole previously played.  It took about 100 years for that to change to TWO club lengths from the cup on the hole previously played.

And, guess what ?  ALL golfers played from the same spot.
Golfers that could be deemed to be 0 handicaps AND golfers that could be deemed to be 20 handicaps ALL played from the same area.

It's only PAR in conjunction with "fairness" that corrupted that concept and procedure.[/color]

The hole was designed to play a certain way, to make certain interesting shots possible. 

Only in your mind.

Holes weren't designed to play a certain way.  They were designed to be played in a variety of ways, DEPENDENT upon the golfer's ability.
Your idea is more of a limited, modern day perspective.[/color]

If the high handicapper can't execute those interesting shots, making him execute other, uninteresting shots, is going to bore him. 

That's sheer nonsense, interesting shots are a function of ability, and not an absolute.

What's interesting to the 20 handicapper is probably boring to the 0 handicap.  AND, the challenge is ALWAYS greater to the 20 handicapper versus the 0 handicapper, in terms of executing.[/color]

None of this has anything to do with par. 


It has everything to do with par.
Golfers strive to score as low as they can and once a benchmark for scoring has been established, they context their play against that benchmark.[/color]

For my argument, par is irrelevant - you're using it as some boogeyman.


You're contradicting yourself.
First you want the 20 handicapper to hit the 220-230 yard par 3 with the same frequency as the 0 handicapper would.  WHY ?  It's only relevant that he do so in the context of par.[/color]

I didn't think your argument merited a point by point response, because it missed the point.  But for your own satisfaction?

"As to the 220 yard Par 3, how did that hole get to 220 yards ?

It was built 5 years ago.  It's Oakmont.  Not sure why it matters. 

Oakmont ?  Outside of Pittsburgh ?
What are the other tee yardages on that hole ?[/color]

Could you name five holes with heroic forced carries so that I can get a better understanding of your premise ?

Grand National Lake, 3rd Hole (175 over water)

Medinah #3, 2nd Hole (192 over water)

Capitol Hill (Judge) #16 (256 over water)

Point O Woods #9 (192 over water)

Crooked Stick #6 (183 over water)

From what tees ?  Tips, back, middle or front ?[/color]

"can tell you what that 20 handicapper ISN'T supposed to do.
And, that's hitting the green or anywhere near the green in regulation."

The average 20 handicapper hits 4-5 greens in regulation.

You must be dreaming.
PGA Tour players only hit 14 greens in regulation.
Where did you get the data that the average 20 handicapper hits 4-5 GIR ?
[/color]

"Since when do 20 handicappers "execute" something ?"

He's certainly supposed to try.  And enjoys it, even if he doesn't succeed as much.

Everyone tries.  But, to expect a 20 handicapper to hit a 220-230 par 3 in regulation, let alone a 0 handicapper is unrealistic[/color]

Why should he have a right of entitlement to hit a club he's comfortable with ?

He's not entitled to anything, he's not entitled to play golf.  The point I was trying to say, is if you do something that makes golf miserable and boring to him, he's not going to play golf. 

Miserable on a golf course ?  You must be kidding.
I don't care how demanding the challenge is, misery is not a natural byproduct of the game.
It's a byproduct of one's personality, save for the weather.

Boring ?  You must be kidding... again. 
I could have a blast on a dead flat piece of land with a tee at one end and a cup at the other, playing against Ran or TEPaul or Mike Sweeney, for pride, bragging rights or a few dollars.

I've NEVER heard any golfer state that they were bored, with a particular shot, or a particular round.  Unless of course they hole out every shot they attempt.[/color]

As I said, if that's what you WANT, then we just have different goals.


That's becoming more and more obvious.[/color]

[J Sadowsky]

I no longer believe that you're discussing this in good faith, and will leave my comments as that.  Thank you.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Justin,

That's a convenient excuse/copout on your part.

I can assure you that my discussion is in good faith.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()