I'll bet ANYONE

[Patrick_Mucci]

that they can't shoot par, net of their handicap, from the back tees (only 6,700 and change),  with competitive hole locations, at Fenway when the greens are relatively firm and running at 10+ and change.

It's got to be one of the most challenging courses I've ever played.

Yet, the fairways are generous and the rough not overly penal.

The small greens, well guarded with deep, steep bunkers present a worthy adversary.

Putts from above 4 & 8 O'clock become defense oriented.

P.S.  The 1st and 15th greens are drivable.

Google the golf course.

Any takers ?

Relatively speaking, I think it's harder than it's neighbors, WFW & QR.

If it had WF's length, I'd be amazed if anyone could break par if they were playing for their own money.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Take a look:

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/fenway-golf-club

[Anthony Gray]

  Hi Pat,

  My name is Bill McBride and I would like to nominate 21.6 handicapper Garland Bayley.

  BM

[JESII]

Any takers ?

One!


But first you'll have to explain what "relatively speaking" means in sensible english...

[Bill Gayne]

Sure, I'll take up the bet.

[Carl Nichols]

As will I.  What are the stakes? 

[John_Conley]

that they can't shoot par, net of their handicap, from the back tees (only 6,700 and change),  with competitive hole locations, at Fenway when the greens are relatively firm and running at 10+ and change.

Pat, safe bet.  What is C.R. and par?  A golfer has only a one in five shot to "play to their handicap" or better.  If the point is that Fenway is a difficult course to score on you can leave it at that.  I don't know that you need a bet tilted grossly in your favor to prove the point.

Any course with their greens running fast and "competitive" hole locations is all I need to make it a great bet for the one taking it.

[CJ Carder]

Sure, I'll take up the bet.

I'm with Bill.  But, what do you get if we don't?   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Any takers ?

One!

But first you'll have to explain what "relatively speaking" means in sensible english...

It's got to do with comparison, or the ordering of items.

Didn't you pay attention in school or were you out playing hooky with TEPaul ?
I know he's a lot older than you, but, I also know that he spent a lot of years in the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th grades.
His graduation gift was a Gymnasium named after him.

[Patrick_Mucci]

that they can't shoot par, net of their handicap, from the back tees (only 6,700 and change),  with competitive hole locations, at Fenway when the greens are relatively firm and running at 10+ and change.

Pat, safe bet.  What is C.R. and par?  A golfer has only a one in five shot to "play to their handicap" or better.  If the point is that Fenway is a difficult course to score on you can leave it at that.  I don't know that you need a bet tilted grossly in your favor to prove the point.

Any course with their greens running fast and "competitive" hole locations is all I need to make it a great bet for the one taking it.

John, Fenway's greens typically run in the 10 range, so, that's not fast for them.
My point in citing the speed was to avoid the bet when the greens might be at 8.

As to competitive hole locations, if I placed them to win the bet, I'd offer another bet on 5 and 10 over par.
By competitive I meant to exclude the easiest hole locations, such as those that might be found on Ladies day or a Mixed day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

This isn't really a bet, it's merely a method of funding my retirement annuity.

Let's start the minimum at $ 250.

If I get enough takers, maybe I'll retire at the end of next year.

[JESII]

OK, so by what metric is Fenway "relatively" harder than WFW?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

MY metric.

I've played them both over the last 50 years and have some degree of familiarity with degrees of difficulty.

Fenway's greens are smaller, better protected, more contoured and more sloped.

Winged Foot's fairways have been narrowed over the years and the course has been lengthened considerably over the years to accomodate Opens and PGA's.

If Fenway narrowed their fairways and lengthened the course to match the yardage, 10 over par might win.

[JESII]

But you've violated the request for "sensible english"...

When you say "relatively speaking" do you mean based on a player's expectations?


I expected WFW to be brutal the firt time I played there and it was. I might not have expected Fenway to be, but would now. Do you think I would think Fenway (as is) is more difficult than WFW?


If WFW shrunk their greens to the size of Fenway, which would be more difficult?

Are the playing corridors (not just fairways) at Fenway narrower than WFW?

[Patrick_Mucci]

But you've violated the request for "sensible english"...

When you say "relatively speaking" do you mean based on a player's expectations?

NO


I expected WFW to be brutal the firt time I played there and it was. I might not have expected Fenway to be, but would now.
Do you think I would think Fenway (as is) is more difficult than WFW?

It would depend upon the condition of the rough when you played WF.

Fenway's rough is fairly benign.
It appears that their irrigation system is NOT a wall to wall system and thus the condition of the rough can be dependent upon Mother Nature.

If WFW shrunk their greens to the size of Fenway, which would be more difficult?

Fenway, due to the foot pads, proximity of the bunkers to the putting surface, feeding nature of Fenways greens to the DEEP, STEEP slopes into the bunkers.

Are the playing corridors (not just fairways) at Fenway narrower than WFW?

NO, they're generally much wider.

While both courses have their share of OB, Fenways may be more dangerous.

[JESII]

Do you think your expectations provide the basis from which your INITIAL views on a course develop?

Mine typically do...whether it's quality or difficulty or enjoyment...if I think it's going to be terrible and it turns out middle of the road, my first impression is more positive than when I expect great things and it turns out middle of the road.

I know, it's a flaw but everybody has to have one...still looking for yours though.



I don't think of WFW's playing corridors as all that narrow, Fenway's are wider?

[Garland Bayley]

  Hi Pat,

  My name is Bill McBride and I would like to nominate 21.6 handicapper Garland Bayley.

  BM

Hi Bill,

How many "natural" birdies do you want me to produce while taking Pat's money?

Pat,

You realize of course that pin position means nothing to the high handicapper/average golfer, don't you?

It only means something to those with low enough handicaps to need natural birdies to shoot a net near the course rating. Those are the people that have to get the ball close. The rest of the population chooses to either shoot for the center of the green or to layup in good position short.

I would suggest that this is an ill-advised bet, and Tom Paul could have told you that from his vast depth of knowledge and wisdom. Also, I am sure Melvyn is composing a long string of LOLs to send you.

[fpd]

Only 3 players shot under par at the recent Mittelmark Invitational at Fenway. Mike Miller of Knollwood CC, one of the top juniors in the Met section, won in a playoff over Tommy Mcdonagh (Penn St). They both shot 3 under par. Several D1 players shot in the 1 over to 5 over range.

[astavrides]

Par is 70.  If the course rating were 70.0 from the back tees, statistically, one would have less than a 25% chance of breaking net par no matter what course we are talking about .   Considering par is 70 and course rating from the back is 72.0, the chances have got to be less than 10% statistically.  Still, if the bet includes access to the course, it might be a worthwhile investment of $250.

[Mark Woodger]

count me in if this is taking place.

[Carl Nichols]

Par is 70.  If the course rating were 70.0 from the back tees, statistically, one would have less than a 25% chance of breaking net par no matter what course we are talking about .   Considering par is 70 and course rating from the back is 72.0, the chances have got to be less than 10% statistically.  Still, if the bet includes access to the course, it might be a worthwhile investment of $250.

Yes it would be very difficult to do, but if Pat is going to handle access, at $250 for a round of golf at a great course plus all the fun that would come with trying, I say it's worth it ..... and one might even catch lightning in a bottle. 

Patrick, when are you available? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Since this seems to have morphed into an "access" issue, the minimum is increased to $ 1,000, unless special dispensation is granted, as in Jim Sullivan's case.

[Carl Nichols]

The last time I played for that much money I was on the losing side (about 2X that amount), and I'd rather not have a repeat. 

I would, in all seriousness, play for the lower amount ....

[JESII]

For the uninformed..."Special Dispensation" means four kids under 6 and about 10 rounds of golf in two years...which is not enought to mave a handicap up accordingly.

Who says Pat doesn't like a sure thing?

By the way, shame to see the "access" direction this has taken.

[Carl Nichols]

By the way, shame to see the "access" direction this has taken.

I'm, at least, just joking around .... though it's hard to make the bet if you can't play the course!