The further the deviation of the ball from the direct line the more fun the shot

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I just received an email from a friend wintering in Tasmania – he played Barnbougle yesterday and made this comment.

“ …..played barnbougle yesterday, which was a lot of fun as usual.  You would have loved the 2 putt I managed at the great 12hole  a 30 ft putt aimed  at the hole and travelling 30ft passed and off the green and then back to 2ft of the hole, so going 90ft for 30 ft ..... great fun  putting it in any conventional way it was impossible to get it within 15ft.......“

That’s a very simple formula for the fun factor.

The further the deviation of the ball from the direct line to the hole the more fun the shot.

[Sven Nilsen]

12th or 13th?

[Matt_Cohn]

Hmm. I'd vote for this being a corollary of the Unified Theory and not anything specifically new.

[BCrosby]

I'll bite. The Unified Theory states ......?

[Matt_Cohn]

I'll bite. The Unified Theory states ......?

Haha wasn't this a few years back on GCA? Anyway, I forget who came up with it but it's something like, "The joy of playing a shot is directly proportional to the length of time the ball is in motion."

In other words, downhill shots, bump and runs, big breakers, fast greens, etc. are all fun because they increase the length of time that the ball is in motion.

[Bill_McBride]

John Kirk I think.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Great feedback – I found the  thread

“The Time between shot and Result is the Key”
started by  John Kirk on May 2005 which ran till January 2010


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,17958.msg428646.html#msg428646

A terrific thread that stimulated a lot of discussion supporting the theory, that the longer the ball was in motion the more fun.
So taking the Unified Theory as proposed by John Kirk and quoted by  Matt Cohn

"The joy of playing a shot is directly proportional to the length of time the ball is in motion."

and in a pointless attempt to describe this mathematically,

Coefficient of Joy = Kj

Kj = fn(Tf ,Tg)

Tf = Time of Ball in motion in flight
Tg =Time of Ball in motion after striking the ground

Now as a Corollary to the much praised Unified Theory (John Kirk 2005) I  propose the:-

Coefficient of Fun or the Fun Factor =  Kf
 
Kf = fn (Tf, Tg, Lf, Lg, Df, Dg)

Tf = Time of Ball in motion in flight
Tg =Time of Ball in motion after striking the ground
Lf = Length of Ball Carry in flight
Lg = Length of Ball Run on the ground
Df =  Required Deviation of the Ball in flight (due to wind) from straight line
Dg = Required Deviation of the Ball on the ground, taken from the strike point to the landing point compared to a direct line to hole

Well that’s the easy bit, now comes the tough part of quantifying the variables and coming up with an equation which reflects the theory!!!??!!!

Here are some guesses

Tf = Time of Ball in motion in flight
Tf (Driver)  =  7 sec approx
Tf (Wedge) =  4 sec approx
Tf (Chip)     = 1 sec approx

Tg =Time of Ball in motion after hitting the ground
Tg (Drive)     = 1 Sec no fun,  5 sec good fun, 10 sec cataclysmic fun
Tg (Wedge)   = 1 Sec no fun,  5 sec good fun, 10 sec cataclysmic fun
Tg (Chip)       = 1 Sec no fun,  5 sec good fun, 10 sec cataclysmic fun
Tg (Putt)        = 1 Sec no fun,  4 sec good fun,  8 sec cataclysmic, 11 sec (Dave Pelz)

Here’s Dave Pelz’s putt from 200 feet ( 67 yards)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htmbMSRj1SQ&feature=related

Lf = Length of Ball Carry in flight
Lf (Driver)  =  from USGA Rating Bogey Player 200 yards
Lf (Wedge) =  100 yards approx
Lf (Chip)     = 1 yds no fun, 5 yds good fun, 10 yds cataclysmic, 20 yards ecstasy etc

Lg = Length of Ball Run on the ground
Lg (Driver)    = 10 yds no fun, 20 yds good fun,  40 yds cataclysmic, 60 yds less fun
Lg (Wedge)   = 2 yds no fun,   15 yds good fun,  25 yds cataclysmic, 35 yds less fun
Lg (Chip)       = 2 yds no fun,   15 yds good fun,  25 yds cataclysmic, 50 yds ecstacy
Lg (Putt)        = 2 yds no fun,   15 yds good fun,  25 yds cataclysmic, 67 yds Pelz

Df =  Required Deviation of the Ball in flight (due to wind) from straight line
Df (Driver)     = 5 yds no fun,   10 yds good fun,  20 yds cataclysmic fun
Df (Wedge)    = 2 yds no fun,     5 yds good fun,  10 yds cataclysmic fun
Df (Chip)        =  not necessarily applicable

Dg = Required Deviation of the Ball on the ground, taken from the strike point to the landing point compared to a direct line to hole
Dg (Driver)    = 5 yds no fun, 10 yds good fun,  20 yds cataclysmic, 30 yds less fun
Dg (Wedge)   = 2 yds no fun,   5 yds good fun,  10 yds cataclysmic, 15 yds less fun
Dg (Chip)       = 2 yds no fun,   5 yds good fun,  10 yds cataclysmic, 15 yds less fun
Dg (Putt)        = straight no fun,1 yd good fun,     7 yds cataclysmic, 10 yds less fun

I’ll keep the equation for later.

Join in the “Fun” and propose your own lower and upper limits of fun– I can see there could be some  wide variation of whether a 20 yds deviation due to wind requirement is fun or frightening.

In fact most of my golfing aquaintances would consider zero yards deviation the maximum Fun Factor and anything more as “Bad design”

Well you can see I’ve got nothing better to do on New Year’s Day, and as my resolution for 2012 is to “take life less seriously” I’m not sure whether I’m  fulfilling my resolution or breaking it – anyway I’m taking a lot of time about it - which is what the “Fun Factor” is all about isn’t it?

[Garland Bayley]

John,

I think you are overlooking the downhill trickle putt. If I remember correctly, John Kirk reported one of 14 seconds in duration.

Kirk rules, Pelz drools.

[Bill_McBride]

There are many, many opportunities for such fun shots on the links courses of the UK, but one that has stuck in my mind for years was the first time I played #4 at Cuscowilla.   After a poor tee shot and more or less chunked second to forty yards short and left of the green, I had several options for the approach.   My caddy was flummoxed when I grabbed the putter, until I rolled the ball to 5' for a par save.   It seemed like the ball rolled for 30 seconds.   

There should be something in those formulae that correlates fun and firm!

[Kalen Braley]

I am curious though...

...how many still find it "fun" when your ball rolls for 15+ seconds and is now further away from the hole than your previous shot was?    

We all remember those miracle shots, but seem to be even better at forgetting the disasterous results...

[Michael Essig]

I think there may be some merit to this.  Have you thought about getting a government grant to prove this theory?  Apparently the Feds have so much money they just give it away.  And when they run out, they just print more!

On a personal note, I had one from about 50 yards - from the fairway at Bandon Trails, I think it was #11 - lagged it to about 8' and holed the second for a par.  My caddie just laughed.

[Garland Bayley]

...  Apparently the Feds have so much money they just give it away.  ...

Much like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Maybe the grant should be written to them. They're both golfers.

[Michael Essig]

Bringing this conversation back to architecture . . . as I was reading MacKenzie's book over the holidays, I noted his statements regarding green designs - that ridges should be wide, which in effect causes the ball to roll more.  A design implementing the Kirk theory would look somewhat like a MacKenzie green IMHO.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Who needs funding – more interesting would be some input from the “cognoscenti”
Alas, it appears seeing one's own written words is more stimulating than defining numbers.

For your visual entertainment here’s the legendary Tiger chip at the 16th at the Masters 2005. The commentary estimated the Deviation, Dg to be 25 feet, about 8.34 yards – if youtube is real time then the time it took, Tg  was 14 secs, including the last 2.5 seconds, when Nike Inc slowed planet Earth down for the ball to travel 1/8th of inch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLKXvGE6kN8

[Michael Essig]

John, I know this "theory" is all in good fun, and what makes it so is its basis in reality, and your Tiger chip is the perfect illustration.  The joy (or agony) increases logrithmically to the amount of time the ball is moving.  Using the Tiger example, would the reaction have been the same if he flew it into the cup?  I think not.

As Garland suggested, and if you can get by the gentlemen wearing suits and carrying concealed weapons, I can drop you in front of Bill's house on my way home and maybe he has some money in the sofa he can throw your way to "proof" this theory.

I do know this: I talk to the ball a lot more the longer it is moving.

Now, if designs regularly implemented this concept, I truly believe it could be fantastic.  The problem is balancing the idea without turning the greens into a putt-putt course.  Cheers.