next »

[Bill Brightly]

Bill Brightly
More than fair minded of you. However, why allow one swing when none should be the order of the day. Good call on the rest, but killing is more than being a traditionalist/purist and should only be reserved for drunks on carts, even that is too good for them.

OK, I'll try it...

I use the one practice swing to try and groove the "swing thought of the moment"...but maybe I should just hit the ball...

[Kalen Braley]

I could easily build a course under 6500 yards that the pros would struggle breaking par on.

All of the holes would look something like this or similar!!   

[David Whitmer]

These days I am very happy at 6200 - 6500 yards, but there are many who are not challenged at that length.

Bill:

I agree with you on the 6200-6500 yds courses. What I wonder is, who are these guys that are not challenged by a 6200-6500 yds course? I know of some former scratch and +1 and +2 golfers (one is a former Irish Close Champion) and they would never turn their noses up at 6200-6500 yds course. In my opinion, these "7000+ only" guys should move onto the 7000 yds course when they routinely score 4 or 5 under on a 6500 yds course. This means they should be plus handicappers.

If any 5 handicapper or above insists on playing 7000+ courses from the back tees, well I think they need to get their heads examined.

Dónal.

Donal,

It's not that a 6200-6500 yard course doesn't challenge me...every golf course has its own challenges. I prefer, however, to have length be a part of my golf challenge. If I play a 6200-6500 yard course, I will play many holes iron-wedge-putter. I prefer another challenge.

I don't understand why some people are so against longer golf courses. If you don't care for a specific length, simply play a forward tee. And in that spirit, it seems to me every golf course is under 6500 yards.

My only three commandments are take care of the golf course, play quickly, and have fun!

[Jud Tigerman]

1. Thou shalt not use a putter that touches thou's torso during the swing.
2. Thou shall never hit into the group in front of you, even if they are a bunch of F%$#ing slow hackers.
3. Thou shall not wear retro loud plaid pants.
4. Thou shall not wear shorts if the temperature is below 60 degrees farenheit.
5. Unless thou is a legitimate tour player, thou shall utilize an extra light carry bag at all times.
6. Thou shall have no more than 2 bag tags from fancy courses attached to thine bag at any one time.
7. Thou shall treat all course employees, guests and members with cordiality even if thou shanked it around all day.
8. Thou shall pick up after thou is out of a hole and/or has maxed out on a given hole for handicap purposes.
9. Thou shall be ready to hit when it is thou's turn.
10. Thou shall not stride around the locker room naked for a period of more than 45 seconds.
11. Thou shall raise the funds and hire TomD to build a course under 6500 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems the easiest way for Tom D to build the 6500 yd course is to buy High Pointe and shorten it.

[Jason McNamara]

Jason,

You're examples are poorly analogous.

Garland, your [sic] really taking this thread seriously?

[DMoriarty]

David M[
Please to hear you can live with the rest saves me the cost of a hit man
as I don’t have time to discuss it over a 100 pages or so.

Sorry for the confusion Melvin, but I meant that I can live with the rest of Mr. Huntley's post, particularly part about enjoying the day.

As for your Commandments I agree with you in spirit but am less sure about your approach.  

[Rob Rigg]

The one and only commandment for me -

Enjoy the walk (or the ride if you so like).

[Donal OCeallaigh]

Donal,

It's not that a 6200-6500 yard course doesn't challenge me...every golf course has its own challenges. I prefer, however, to have length be a part of my golf challenge. If I play a 6200-6500 yard course, I will play many holes iron-wedge-putter. I prefer another challenge.

I don't understand why some people are so against longer golf courses. If you don't care for a specific length, simply play a forward tee. And in that spirit, it seems to me every golf course is under 6500 yards.

My only three commandments are take care of the golf course, play quickly, and have fun!

David:

I respect your opinion. I not against long courses as such. What I'm against is the notion that 6500 yard courses are a walkover and that the only challenge is to be had by taking on the 7000+ monsters. I believe that courses over 7000+ yards should only be played by very low handicappers. Even if you're booming your drives 300 yards on a 6500 yard course and only managing to score 5 over, that means you've got problems somewhere else in your game. That's what golf is about, exposing your weaknesses.

I don know how good or bad a golfer you are, but if your're playing an iron and wedge to many holes on a 6200-6500 course, then you must be a big hitter. It all then depends on what you score. If it's not close to level par, then you need to concentrate on your weaknesses (chipping, putting, shots from 100 yds in) and forget about the 7000 yard courses. If you're scoring well, then by all means, go for the 7000 yards course.

A 6500 yard course will have 5-6 par 4s over 400 yards and depending on it's par, it might have a couple of par 5s over 500 or 550 yards. I can think of courses like Ballybunion that are about 6600 yards and they would challenge any golfer. Ballybunion has a good mix of long and short par 3s and par 4s. I accept the two par 5s are not so long, but what I'd say to any golfer is, "tot up your score at the end and lets see how you did".

The golf course is like an examination paper. If you scoring an F on the 6500 yard course, there isn't much point aiming at the 7000 yard course.

Thou shalt not let pride influence your choice of tee to play from.

Dónal.

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

You're examples are poorly analogous.

Garland, your [sic] really taking this thread seriously?

Thanks for catching my tyop.
It seemed your post addressed serious topics, so I was only taking the cue from you.

[Rory Connaughton]

Donal

  I get your point but I play with any number of players who do not struggle with distance and for whom playing a course at too short a yardage eliminates much of the strategy from the tee.  They are as likely to shoot 75-78 from 6,300 as 6,800 depending on the topography but get more enjoyment from the longer course because of the added challenge of dealing with fairway bunkering that would otherwise be out of play.  I have also played links courses where the course is more benign for players of reasonable length from further back because there is less risk of running through the fairway.
I guess my point is, it all depends on the course.

[Jud Tigerman]

the point is that what % of the golfing public is too long to fully enjoy a 6500 yard course? Probably only guys who are single digit handicaps.  What percentage of the entire golfing public is that? 10% or less? nevertheless 100% of the courses built today are longer than 6500 with a large percentage over 7000. this makes golf take longer and cost more for 100% of us..and it hurts the growth of the game.

[Mike Benham]

1.   You shall only Walk unless unable by act of God

4.   You shall not ride in carts (unless for medical reasons) nor build cart tracks

Mike
No, not redundant far from it, bloody needed and soon or the self righteous will inherited the golf courses

Melvyn -

My comment about redundancy is tied to "You shall only Walk" and "You shall not ride in carts".  To me, those are redundant statements ("characterized by similarity or repetition").  If the end result of those two commandments is not similar, please explain what I am missing.

As for the tag of "nor build cart tracks", perhaps that should be a separate commandment and since I haven't built any "cart tracks", then I guess I am in good graces with someone.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom Doak courses under 6500 yards:

- Pacific Dunes (orange, gold, green)
- Cape Kidnappers (green, red, yellow)
- Quail Crossing (blue, white, green)

I guess most of his other courses are under 6500 yards as well. So what is all the fuss about wanting to show the world what can be done under 6500 yards? Just look, it's already out there!

Ulrich

[Dan Herrmann]

Uh oh - I'm headed for that fire & brimstone place

[Sean Arble]

Tom Doak courses under 6500 yards:

- Pacific Dunes (orange, gold, green)
- Cape Kidnappers (green, red, yellow)
- Quail Crossing (blue, white, green)

I guess most of his other courses are under 6500 yards as well. So what is all the fuss about wanting to show the world what can be done under 6500 yards? Just look, it's already out there!

Ulrich

Ulrich

I could be wrong, but I think Tom means less than 6500 from the tips.  I bet there are more than a few archies who would like to tread in the 6000-6500 waters.  In this day and age, if an archie could pull off a spell binder at that length it really would be something.  The fact that they don't really shows how much the idea of "championship" golf has taken over the scene.

Rory

Everybody struggles with distance because distance is useless without accuracy.  I to don't much see the point in teeing up at 7000 yards unless you are consistently near par or better.  It is quite clear to me that length is only one element of what makes for the best holes.  If the boat is pushed out to 7000 yards the element of length creates an imbalance of the elements for all except the excellent players and a 5 capper doesn't qualify as among the excellent.     

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sorry, I don't understand. A golf course is a golf course - it is played from some tee to some hole. Just look at any scorecard - there are probably a number of golf courses on it, each rated differently as to slope, course rating and (occasionally) par.

Therefore the majority of golf courses built are under 6500 yards. How do the ones play that I listed above? Are they all bad?

Or is there something else behind the complaint that architects don't get to design below 6500 yards? Do they, perhaps, fancy extremely small sites, where back tees aren't possible?

Ulrich

[Sean Arble]

Sorry, I don't understand. A golf course is a golf course - it is played from some tee to some hole. Just look at any scorecard - there are probably a number of golf courses on it, each rated differently as to slope, course rating and (occasionally) par.

Therefore the majority of golf courses built are under 6500 yards. How do the ones play that I listed above? Are they all bad?

Or is there something else behind the complaint that architects don't get to design below 6500 yards? Do they, perhaps, fancy extremely small sites, where back tees aren't possible?

Ulrich

Ulrich

You will have to ask Doak what he hopes to accomplish with a maxed out 6500 yard course.  But I suspect its partially to prove a point that length is only one element of a course and unless its a true championship test, to a large degree, the extra length made available serves little purpose (beyond marketing of course) other than to create extra costs and slow the game down.  This point in particular is often missed by those who go on about slow play. In addition to the popular form of the game shifting from 2 ball to 4 ball emphasis, in the old days, courses were much shorter and therefore much easier to get around quicker. 

Ciao

[Steve Pozaric]

I could easily build a course under 6500 yards that the pros would struggle breaking par on.

All of the holes would look something like this or similar!!   

Kalen:

Nice picture.  Interesting choice given the somewhat cultural/geographic divide I see in this thread.  I remember fondly the chants of USA USA last time I was there. 

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

Sean, Ulrich

Come on guys we are talking about the modern game of golf and from what I have observed over the last 50 years common sense has not played any part in the game. Money is what dictates drives and steers the game these days.

We can control distance, we can limit the length of holes, and of course, we can. However to do so we have to decide if the game of golf is all about money or the ordinary player. My opinion for what its worth is to consider the ordinary golfer. The professionals can be controlled, our architects can do that with the help of the Governing Bodies, but that takes first an interest, then the will to do so.

I feel what Tom is driving at, is that given the opportunity he can design and no doubt build a first class challenging course of under 6,500 yards that would test even the greats. Add control to cover ball travel by incorporating technology would enhance the challenge that his shorter course may produce.

I know Tom and I differ when discussing penal vs. strategy, but in fairness, I feel we are really on the same path. A course is measured in its challenges, how it tests the golfer, yet the modern approach is the hit the ball with all your might to achieve distance, but I feel the golfer has raced down the path of distance sacrificed control and accuracy on the way.

Fairway bunkers are deemed to be unfair, but that is what they are there, to limit the distance shot, to test the golfer, proving that two/three accurate approach shots are more productive than the wham bam thank you Mam, that we appear to see nearly everyday either on the course or TV. 

We mention strategy, but in truth what strategy, what we get is more like a wet and weak handshake, why, because the Architect wants it, No IMHO it’s what the Members/Owners/Golfer seem to want. The modern idea of testing the golfer is becoming a taboo subject, soon we here in the UK will be calling in the Health & Safety to remove bunkers because a golfer may trip over the rake.

Let’s look at the learning process, we get all the info about grip, swing, balance etc., etc, but how much is explained to the golfer about strategy. Form my experience precious little, you are just taught to master the technique, and then sent on your way. Either it comes naturally (seldom does) or the local caddies tend to give a basic brief but more on a shot for shot basis.

I believe that shorter courses are a must as is the need to control ball travel to secure our courses to a reasonable length.  If you want to drive a ball 300yds go to a driving range, if you want to play the game of golf incorporating the tests and challenges, then go to a golf course. To have both on a course just makes the game very expensive in the procurement and maintenance of the land and quite frankly dulls down the challenges.

So I agree with Sean distance is not really anything to do with playing the game, accuracy is what counts. It should count on the fairway as much as it does on the Greens. As for the Greens, I would love to see far more variation in green speeds overall all 18 Green per course. Those that moan re green speeds only seem competent on fast greens, but why make them all fast, we must keep testing the golfers, after all is that not the reason they are there playing golf in the first place?

Melvyn

Mike B

I & 4 are different, one relates to golf being a walking game period while 4 allows the mobility challenged to use carts. No matter how many medical carts are available on any course, on no account are cart tracks allowed.

[Steve Pozaric]

I am surprised by the reaction of some, however I really should not be when we consider that the fundamental part of the game is totally prostituted through the wishes and desires of a number of large lazy, selfish and inconsiderate people. They are willing to change the face of golf to suit their purposes, then attack those who point out that golf is a walking game.

If totally able bodied and you ride in a cart when playing what you call golf, then you have betrayed the principal way the game has been played for Centuries. Moan, complain, call me names do what the hell you want but that betrayal of golf is totally down to you, has nothing to do with me apart from daring to expose the great nearly unspoken secret that carting is not GOLF.

You and your fellow carters have deliberately set out to change the game, IMO to undermine its basic values and the rewards the game of golf gives the player. So don’t come up with excuses, just be man enough to admit it. If you can still face being honest call your game cartgolf or cartballing but not golf for the very fact that you ride and do not walk. 

In closing, I address all those over 50 golfers who started playing in the 50’s-60’s when carts, cart tracks, distance aids, long courses etc did not blight our courses. Remember the early days and why you have played golf ever since, was it for the love of the new toys (that make life easier for the modern golfer) or was it for the fun and pleasure it gave you in walking, judging distance naturally and being able to play at least two round in a day. Those halcyon day of you, the course, of the equipment that worked with each hole and all with no outside distractions. That was golf, that is golf, why are you happily watching it change, yet content to watch nearly all the other sports you are interested in remaining relatively unchanged. This is the part I do not understand, it has nothing to do with being anti anything.  Nevertheless, while I am not a lone voice, I am aware that I am only part of small minority in today’s world of modern golf where money is more important than the game.

Melvyn

Melvyn:

I enjoy walking and playing golf and have been known to refer to golfing with a cart as cartball.  Courses of the length people are discussing (6500 yrds) are fine.  

However, I believe we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the essence/nature of the game.  You state "the fundamental part of the game" is prostituted by riding, that people "betray" the game by using a cart, that we undermine the its basic values by not walking, etc. As I mentioned, I really enjoy walking and playing, but I believe other aspects of the game are much more central to the basic values.  This would, of course, include shotmaking (not mind you hitting 300+ yard drives) and figuring out a way to play a well designed course.  Carts, imho, are just another aspect of technology that make its way into absolutely every sport.  Technology is not a bad thing.  

In golf, you have advances in the balls and clubs.  Should we all be forced into using hand made wooden clubs and featheries, wearing heavy woolen coats?  Should we have to use a old school heavy leather bag?  If you use modern clubs and balls, don't use metal spikes, use a light weight carry bag, use a pull cart, wear goretex on the course, aren't you betraying the traditions of the game?  After all, you aren't playing the same game they way it was used to be played.  Further, look at the conditioning of modern courses.  Should we also go back to the conditioning you see in the 1950's, or even the 1930s or earlier?  

Other sports have changed over time.  Look at how baseball has evolved (not talking about 'roids either).  Looking at the shoes, gloves and bats from the 30s to today is vastly different.  Same with football.  How about auto racing?  Should we require the drivers to go back to wearing polo shirts and helmets without seat belts and safety equipment because, by god, that was what the true drivers wore back in the day?

Maybe it is because the US is an autocentric society, I don't really know.  Maybe it is a function of our weather.  I live in St. Louis, MO.  In the summer months, high heat 90+ degrees and high humidity (you can frequently see dew points well over 70 deg) are not uncommon.  In those conditions, carts are or at least can be a sensibile accomodation.

In all, carts don't offend me.  My wife plays a little, but I am doubtful she would play if required to walk all the time.  I have 6 yr old and 9 yr old daughters.  I really don't see them at their age walking 9 holes of golf.  Carts provide an entry into the game for them.  Would I prefer they walk?  Sure.  Will I encourage them to do so and attempt to set an example to that effect?  Sure.  However, if they want to play golf and ride, I would prefer to be able to do that with them that not play golf at all.

Sorry for the threadjack (okay, not really ), but back to the topic, my commandments would revolve around playing the ball as it lies, having fun and playing quickly.

Again, technology is not a bad thing, after all, without it, we couldn't have a discussion about how bad it is in golf without it.  Now, I will go watch Phineas and Ferb with my girls seen via my satellite dish (a funny show by the way for a kids show) before going to watch them play soccer and missing our season ending golf tournament.  

As I was typing this, I saw your most recent post which I agree with by and large.  Course design and playing strategy are key, to me, though, I don't think that one necessarily must walk in order to properly figure it out.

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

Steve

I take your point re climate conditions, however, this is yet another aspect of the modern game that has not been properly addressed (well IMHO that is).

I have for my sins played in the tropics from Africa to India, Brazil etc and all walking because in my day I did not have a choice. Even had there been I would still have walked, but that is just me trying to play a game that was only ever playable if one walked. Pre WW2 if you did not walk you did not play, seems fair then and I see no need to change that now, but again that is my opinion.

As for technology, please understand I am not against it, however I believe it should be controlled and used to maintain the game and its qualities. Yet we have allowed ‘All Comers’ to use just about what they want on a course, some saying there game has improved, however was it down to their improving skill or just that technology has assisted them more than they care to think.

Please let me be clear, I do not blame the architects or even the golfers, I place the blame squarely at the feet of our governing bodies and PGA. Their total lack of foresight and the greed for money appears to be more important than preserving the basics of the game. The debate on the ball is now a century old, but have we moved forward, not IMHO if anything we stalled in the 1920’s. Technology is a great tool but being a tool we need to use it as one, not let it control the game by fudging the issue.

I am not against carting or using carts, I certainly have no problem with that. I understand why some like it, why many use it in hot climates, but using a cart is a fundamental break with the game of golf. Your body is not having to take the wear and tear as it walking, the mental and physical pressure are totally different when walking in whatever climate conditions you care to mention. Want to use a cart then fine, call it carting, cartball, or whatever name you wish but not golf that should be reserved IMHO to the guys that Walk. Also no course if it is called a golf course should ban walking, that I feel is clearly discrimination against the Golfer (to you the walking golfer) thus further showing that using a cart, yet again show its not golf that is being played, but carting, cartballing etc.

As for your comment re clothes etc, I feel we are moving away from a common sense debate to the realms of silliness in trying to brand my opinion as rather ridiculous. Nevertheless, we have the right to disagree, but please can we do so without bring in feathery balls, wooden shafted clubs, plus fours etc.

In closing I would like to say thanks for your honest post, I do understand your point of view.

Melvyn

[Jud Tigerman]

Steve,

do yourself a favor.  step away from the keyboard, go bang your head on a brick wall until it's good and bloody.  it will take less time and be less painful....

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

Jud

Is that comment to Steve aimed at me?

Melvyn

[Steve Pozaric]

Steve,

do yourself a favor.  step away from the keyboard, go bang your head on a brick wall until it's good and bloody.  it will take less time and be less painful....

Jud:

Good idea.  Instead, however, I will go watch soccer (or football to our friends across the pond


Melvyn:

Thanks for the response, my point about equipment (featheries, wooden clubs, etc), was that some things have changed.  Carts are merely one aspect of it.

[Tom MacWood]

~

[Mac Plumart]

Gents...let me add in another comment or two.

It seems like people hammer Melvyn a lot and he hammers back.  He has an agenda regarding trying to influence the "old school" nature of the game...no doubt.

It seems that his writing gets under people's skin and at times seems to hurt them at some level.  I would argue that my level of hurt regarding his comments prior to joining this site were near the tipity top of the pile.  I felt I was giving all I had to the game, but of course I couldn't walk and to hear that I was cartballer or a cart-baller was killing me as it implied I wasn't a real golfer.  Why did it bother me?  I've referenced Annika's Hall of Fame induction before about simply wanting to be a golfer, so I won't elaborate on it too much...but that is the spirit of why it hurt so much.

Anyway, since joining the site I've learned a lot more about Melvyn and his ideals/agenda through his public posts and private posts.  This has helped me handle his comments better and the raw nerves that he rubs...are simply not raw anymore.

I think he is correct on a lot of his comments.  It is indisputable that the original game of golf was a walking game.  Reading Hunter's book illuminates that fact clearly.  But the game has progressed and changed somewhat.  Carts, mountain golf courses, courses in the desert, etc.  But there still are places to enjoy the walking golf game...I won't bore you with those courses as you know them.

Anyway, my point is that if the comments hurt you as they used to hurt me, try to remember it is mind over matter.  If you don't mind his comments they don't matter.  This might help your psyche and it might keep fights from popping up on the site.  Not that good discussions can't have fighting in them, but I don't think a game with a history as honorable as golf should degenerate into the level being seen on the site is productive.

However, some people in life like to argue/debate so if that is the case...go for it...as the point of thie site is to enjoy yourself.  But if you find someone's comments hurtufl...remember mind over matter!

I will re-iterate I think he has a lot of valid points that deserve consideration.  However, his view on the game might not line up with yours.  but in my opinion that is fine.  That are corurses/places for all of us.

God Bless!!

[Craig Sweet]

I don't believe in "commandments"....of any kind...they are too rigid and they smack of "religion" and golf is NOT a religion.....I understand that some people think golf is a religion,  and they tend to be the people that think they are always right and never wrong...and if you are not with them then surly you are going to burn in hell for thinking otherwise...

Isn't the popular myth that people left England for America  because they were tired of religious tyranny? Perhaps that is why we have "cart golf" here in America...its a further manifestation of escaping religious tyranny and Melvyn's 10 Golfing Commandments? 

[Cristian Willaert]

Thou shalt...

1. acknowledge good shots of your fellow competitors...
2. help search for lost balls before being asked to do so...
3. Take your turn on the Tee... (ready play is an agreement, not an excuse)
4. not pause between nine's if the 10th tee is free...
5. not disturb other groups putting or teeing off...
6. not use cellphones...
7. take no more than one or two practise swings...
8. let faster groups play through...
9. ...including singles...
10. enjoy yourself, even if you shoot 95

[Mike Benham]

Mike B

I & 4 are different, one relates to golf being a walking game period while 4 allows the mobility challenged to use carts. No matter how many medical carts are available on any course, on no account are cart tracks allowed.

Melvyn - I agree with you on cart paths ...

But you are falling into the same narrow minded focus that you accuse many USAers of in allowing carts for medical reasons.  

I am disappointed that you haven't realized that the carts don't have to be motorized or electric and should be of human propulsion.

Back in Old Tom's (or Young Tom's for that matter) day, how did golfer who were not medically able to walk, proceed around the course?  A horse and buggy is not appropriate but a wide wheeled 3-wheeled buggy (modified trolley) would seem more then plausible today.  A fore-caddie could be employed to allow this otherwise disabled golfer to enjoy the game.

Regards

[TEPaul]

"#1 and #4 are redundant ..."


MikeB:

Not really as flying might be an option!

[Kyle Henderson]

"#1 and #4 are redundant ..."


MikeB:

Not really as flying might be an option!

How about waterways to allow swimming or boating (a la Coeur'd'Alene or Phelps National) between holes?


I remember having a discussion about the poor aesthetics of Pasatiempo's bridge on the 11th hole. Why not offer a zip line or catapult instead?

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

Dónal

Regards books as you mentioned earlier I thought you might like to see the index/content from 'Tom Morris of St Andrews The Colossus of Golf 1821-1908' which was issued to the USGA and the index pages are shown on the web, see the following link
www.usga.org/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=26549. It just shows the content of each chapter only. If another copy is soon due out at £35 I expect it could well have the same information. May give you an idea of what to expect

Melvyn

[Melvyn Hunter Morrow]

Mac

I read with interest you posted comment  #61.

I feel I should reply, not in promoting my case but as a simple explanation to my position.

I suspect the real problem is that no one know me on this site, no one has ever met me or had a face to face conversation we me. Yet many jump in talking about my tone, but what is tone? 

I have never said I am superior to anyone, nor that I have any more rights than the next person, even including that poor demented soul Pat Craig who certainly has a massive problem with me being on GCA.com. However, as a discussion group we all submit opinions and information for potential discussion.

I am no saint, I can mix it with the best, but I also have real roots in the game of golf that goes deeper than the majority. I try to share some of my information, I try where possible to help and assist other Members of GCA.com. Perhaps through that long connection with golf or due to the way my parents raised me, I am willing to voice my opinions, be it regards the R&A or just the way I see the game wandering from it original path, which I do not see as normal progress (perhaps kidnapped may be more appropriate). If my opinions are in the minority then so be it, but it will not stop me grasping the nettle if I feel (IMHO) that something is going wrong. After all, I have no authority, no way of forcing my opinions on you or anyone, but I do hope my comments make some of you think about the subject matter.

I do not see myself as ‘old school’, I just see myself pushing the facts that golf is a Walking game. Pre WW2 if you could not walk you did not play golf, if there was a mobility problem then unless it could be overcome and you could walk then you did not even think of playing golf. However there are records of brave people who persevered and were able to play golf, the likes of Douglas Bader who lost both legs in the early 1930’s but not only walked again on his artificial ‘tin’ legs but played golf and flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. He had no cart to assist him or required distance aids.

I am sorry if I have managed to get under your or anyone else’s skin, to inflict any form of mental hurt because that was not and is not my intention. Nevertheless, I will not change my opinion that golf is a walking game and that carts should only be made available for those who need them (on medical grounds) in navigating a golf course.

Let’s not forget that I am not talking to you as an able-bodied individual that can walk miles. I have been unable to do that for many years, in fact if I manage a couple of hundred yards then I consider that a good day. Sometimes the unbearable pain triggers in my lower back well before that distance. Therefore, the only way I can play golf (if I dare swing a club) would be to ride, but as I see it, I currently have no real choice, I do not play nor do I care to ride as I just feel it totally wrong. That my friend is my hurt, my pain and how do you think that makes me feel. When I talk of carts, I talk as someone who needs assistance just to walk a few hundred yards or at least have a seating area nearby.

Yet, I still believe Golf to be a walking game, any other form is not golf, I clearly know what I am saying and like you, I have a full understanding about mobility, and not just on a golf course. 

The truth is that in life there are many things that are not suitable to certain individuals be it due to lack of mental skills or physical abilities. The classic example being women have been pushing against a similar boundary, but due to their physic, some tasks are just not suitable.

The walking/riding debate goes on, but if one able bodied golfer is riding and one walking then the rider will be fresher and less tired as he progress down the course obtaining an unfair advantage (due to outside aids) over the walker. Many will say that’s easy, they can both ride, but many still only play by walking. Why does the Walker have to compromise his game (based upon centuries of traditional walking) for the sake of a rider, who clearly show little regard for the game (or his golfing partner) by riding in the first place?

I keep coming back to the point that golf is a challenge, a test on the golfer, which includes walking. If you are able bodied and use the cart then you have decided to take the easy option, same as those who use distance aids. You have fallen at the fist stage of playing golf by not walking, then doubled the insult to the tradition of the game by using distance aids. Yet be proud of yourself, you did it your way, but never forget that was with a little bit of help form outside means.

Mac, others who find themselves in the same position as us, the cart is the only option, which allows them to play the game they want. I hope the courage you show makes other able-bodied players feel guilt. You need the cart to get around the course, they need it’s because of their zero lack of commitment to themselves or the game – well IMHO. 

Please do not mind my comments, because that is all they are, options on a discussion board. However if a job is worth doing, its work doing well, if the game of golf is to be played then it should played by Walking in the time honoured way.

Melvyn

[Steve Lang]

  Mel,

I suspect by now you'd have word processed..

simple question.. why did you use the modern pronoun "you" instead of the archaic "thou"?