[Anthony Gray]

Adam,

I think your hunting analogy is more along these lines:

The old timer goes looking for signs of the animal, learning it's tendencies and habitat.  He learns to do the things necessary to remain undetected.....odor control, position in relation to wind, noise control, invisibility, etc. He is truly a stalker.

He is patient, and waits for the most opportune time to make a quick, sure kill.

Unlike the modern hunter, who builds a small enclosure somewhere easy to get to by car or truck, places food in the area several weeks before hunting season, then engages in target practice on opening day, without any knowledge or skill whatsoever.

Joe

  Joe ..... Very well stated. I had no idea hunting takes pure genius.

 


  Anthony

[JESII]

Adam,

I agree that par is irrelevant, but score cannot be.

Your "Sportsmen" question relates more to an individuals preferences than goals. The end goal is to get the deer, or save a stroke. Perhaps mistakenly, I read your words "But I also like being out played, or in golf, taught a lesson" as not necessarily thinking the end goal is to save a stroke.

Enjoying losing just doesn't compute with me, so if what you mean is that you enjoy observing a better way to do it so you can be better next time, great...we're on the same page.

I think the "card and pencil mentality" stereotype/accusation is flawed because it implies someone is not appreciative of the game of golf if they are interested in scoring well.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully:

Like most stereotypes, the "card and pencil mentality" accusation tends to apply only at the extremes.  That is, if one is SO focused on score such that he ignores other worthwhile parts of the game, or criticizes parts that affect only this way to play, then of course that is not good.  However, the instances of this actually occurring are very very small.  Thus I agree with you that a much too broad brush is used when this accusation is made, as it tends to go out to anyone who is interested in scoring well and god forbid actually records a score in a golf round.  And that is just plain wrong.

As for enjoying losing.... it's funny I have made a similar statement on here before, and got rather a re-torn ass for it.  That is, I have said some of the more enjoyable rounds I have played have been defeats.  And I mean that quite sincerely.  But I think you nailed WHY such were enjoyable.. one fights the good fight and learns from his experience.  Then particularly when this occurs against a classy opponent, well I do find that enjoyable.

Of course I also find ALL golf enjoyable, so take with proper ocean of salt.

TH

[Rich Goodale]

Adam

Nobody has ever "beaten" a golf course and nobody ever will (possibly excepting Kim il-Jung, if he manages to raise his amazing holes-one quotient to 100%).  Every golfer plays golf courses, sometimes with or even against other people.  That is all.  Nobody is ever "beaten" at golf, either, even if they come out on the wrong side of a 10-8 match.  They will have played the game and learned something--it is inevitable.  Let me revise that a bit.  Nobody is ever beaten at golf unless they quit the game, and that is truly an occasion when one can say sincerely, "What a pity."

rich

[JESII]

Rich,

How about "overcoming..."?

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich - I was hoping you'd chime in here as you seem to be to be uniquely qualified to comment... much competitive play, much whimsical play, travelled the world, live in a golf heaven, more devoted to the game than most, wise, great communicator....

But you disappoint me in focusing on the word rather than the greater substance.

Say Adam changes "beaten" to something like "one-upping."

In your view, is there a worth in trying to "one-up" the golf course?  Is such greater or lesser than defeating an opponent in a match, or winning or failing to win a stroke play tournament?  How does it relate to exceeding a standard one sets for one's self in playing, whatever that standard might be?

Or in short, how much does the course matter, and how much does just playing golf matter?

I do not mean to challenge you and none of this is adversarial in any way. I am just quite sincerely interested in how you look at this, with a hope to gain insight.

Thanks.

LATE EDIT - Sully, great minds - you wonderfully brief, me horridly wordy.   

[JESII]

No worries...it seems "wonderfully brief" on here is a sure way to have 9 out of 10 question go unanswered...

[Rich Goodale]

Sully and Hucky

Any "overcoming" is temporary, and if it even exists it does so only in reference to yourself, and to specific objectives you might have.  If you finally manage to make the carry at the 16th at CPC, you have achieved an objective, but hardly overcome anything, except maybe a mental block.  Even so, tomorrow you could stand there and hit 20 balls in the water.  If I ever break 70 from the back tees at Dornoch I will have achieved a number, but not much more.  And, I know that my number would just be chump change for Tiger but nirvana for the 15 handicap.  What have I overcome other than save a few strokes over my "normal" score?  We all have good days and bad days, and most of us try only to improve, or to minimize the degradations of older age.  And have fun in the process

r.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

Gotcha, understood.

But that's not enough.  But how about one more question?


Or in short, how much does the course matter, and how much does just playing golf matter?

[Rich Goodale]

Rich:

Gotcha, understood.

But that's not enough.  But how about one more question?


Or in short, how much does the course matter, and how much does just playing golf matter?

Too hard a question for Friday night.  I'll check back in Monday morning if it's still on page 1.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich - it is a tough question.  But that's why I gave it to you.

Enjoy the weekend!

 

[Adam Clayman]

Adam,

I agree that par is irrelevant, but score cannot be.

Your "Sportsmen" question relates more to an individuals preferences than goals. The end goal is to get the deer, or save a stroke. Perhaps mistakenly, I read your words "But I also like being out played, or in golf, taught a lesson" as not necessarily thinking the end goal is to save a stroke.

Enjoying losing just doesn't compute with me, so if what you mean is that you enjoy observing a better way to do it so you can be better next time, great...we're on the same page.

I think the "card and pencil mentality" stereotype/accusation is flawed because it implies someone is not appreciative of the game of golf if they are interested in scoring well.

Jim,
 If someone is out purely for the shots, they are not there for score. Many many people I have come across, never keep score. I only keep a score for handicap purposes, which sadly means nothing to me right now because rarely is there a cause to use it.

Score, as a thought during the round, has always been counter productive, for me. A result oriented thought, during the playing of a hole, translates to thinking about the wrong thing. It s not the task at hand.  Add'em up when we're all done, is all I care to know about score. Yes, after each hole I have to recall my score, but, that's normative.

On the hunting front... Here in the sand hills, there's really no place to hide. The skills of the sportsman are exemplified in how they shot the prey. The most skilled shoot accurately with a bow or muzzle loaders from distances the average Joe wouldn't be able to kill with the highest tech gear. They play the wind and the animal and the best shots are instant kills because they don;t want to have to track the wounded animal until it bleeds out. That's how they score their sport.

I admit golf is a game that cannot be won. Only played. But as a sport, golf has all these incalculable positives that obviously consumes people's hearts and souls.

[JESII]

Adam,

I understand what you are saying, and respect it.

My entire point revolves around the idea of hitting golf shots, and trying to do it better than the last time (physically and/or mentally)...that's it!

If someone is out on the golf course simply for the fresh air and the walk I respect that to, but they are not playing golf that any sort of architect can contemplate beyond an occassional nice view.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam,

I think your hunting analogy is more along these lines:

The old timer goes looking for signs of the animal, learning it's tendencies and habitat.  He learns to do the things necessary to remain undetected.....odor control, position in relation to wind, noise control, invisibility, etc. He is truly a stalker.

He is patient, and waits for the most opportune time to make a quick, sure kill.

Unlike the modern hunter, who builds a small enclosure somewhere easy to get to by car or truck, places food in the area several weeks before hunting season, then engages in target practice on opening day, without any knowledge or skill whatsoever.

Joe

Joe - reminds me. I used to go hunting with my dad when I was a kid, 10, 11 years old.  Small game, partridge, rabbit. Didn't have a gun myself, mostly just kept dad company, walking in the woods, having lunch out in a field (my favourite part - the sausages and cheese and bread tasted even better out there, and it was quiet). We always kept whatever we killed and brought it home for supper. I didn't think there was a single thing wrong with hunting. One day he let me carry the gun, a 20 gauge. Had the barrel down, pointed to the ground. We were walking along a narrow path in the woods, and I was about 5 yards ahead of him.  We come to a bend in the trail, and as I turn the corner I see right there, just a few feet away and low, a partridge. For some reason, it didnt move, or not quickly enough. Excitedly I had the gun up and pointed and was pulling the trigger even before dad got there and said "Don't... (as in 'don't shoot', because as I'd soon realize, I was much too close with that much gun and so little prey). I pulled the trigger, and a second later there was nothing there. Nothing. The partridge blown to smithereens. Nothing to take home for supper. Nothing at all. Looking back, I remember eating lunch in silence and just moping around for a hour, when dad decided we should go home early. Never picked up a gun again. Can't even imagine doing it ever again. Not a statement about (or against) hunting -- just my personal experience. Sometimes a 20 gauge is too much gun. It defeats the entire purpose....

Peter     

[Sean_A]

I fall in line with Rich here.  When somebody shoots 18 for 18 holes they will have overcome, beaten or whichever way you want to describe it, the course.  Why, because you cannot compete with a golf course.  It is an impossibility because the course is NOT a competitor.  The course is a field of play.  The fact that some courses are more compelling than others has no bearing on the competitive nature of the game.  This is a very easy concept that folks seem to get muddled up.  Whatever you are doing when you go out there to grind out a score with or without a field is not competing against the course.  You are either competing against someone else or yourself in some way (best score ever?).  To say that a earning a birdie is overcoming the course is very short sighted in imo.  Perhaps this sort of "PAR" thinking is the reason for lengthening and toughening courses to the point where they aren't fun for all to play.  I know when I play I play to beat an opponent and have a few laughs along the way.  So long as I have the few laughs, losing is not a big concern, but I would rather win regardless if my play was good, bad or indifferent. 

Ciao 

[Brent Hutto]

I'll buy into Adam's formulation in one limited sense. Haven't we all experienced a certain shot or challenge on particular hole that seems to stymie us completely the first few (or many) times we encounter it?

Maybe it's a pin placement just over a bunker on a very shallow green that seems to make it almost impossible to get a ball anywhere near that hole location. But every time we face that shot we try it and maybe on the fifth or tenth or thirtieth time (assuming it's a course we play regularly) we manage to arch that 5-iron way up high and drop it just over the bunker, leaving a four-foot putt. In that situation it feels very much the same as having bested a particularly stubborn opponent in a match or birdied the last hole to break 80 for the first time.

I don't think that feeling scales up well to an entire course but I think a golf course can present certain specific challenges that may be "beaten" in a sense.

[Adam Clayman]

A specific situation came to mind reading some of the well thought out replies.

The 15th at Wild Horse in G-burg, Ne. A complete homage to the tenth at The Riv. Dan and Dave built a smallish green obliquely angled to the fairway's center, with bunkers center, front and rear. Every other time I've played the hole going for the flag was never prudent. On this particular day, the wind was just right, directly into your face. After calculating in my mind's eye the proper distance to play the shot, with the right trajectory, I could hold the green. So I launched it and flew high str8 and true. Only to come to rest five feet below the hole. Almost a certain birdie on a hole that anyone would take par and gladly walk to 16 tee. Well, I missed the putt. But, I can't help but think I'd have made it if one of my playing partners, who had flown the green and was in the most awkward of spots hadn't chipped in and stolen my thunder. But that's golf.

In my mind, I overcame the course and elements by figuring out ahed of time the affects of all variables. Save for the expectation that I would make the putt. But that's my own fault for having expectations and the failings of a result oriented mindset. Same is true in poker when you flop a set and by the river, go immediately to jail.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()