The Old Macdonald dilemma....

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

I disagree.  You can chip with any less lofted club quite easily.  Personally I prefer a rescue club as you don't have to hammer it like a putter from distance.  There are no shots that are off limits, just degrees of difficulty..

Jud, What is the advantage in using the bunp and run verus a putter? Are you eliminating a turf type through which the putt is not predictable? Are you eliminating a slope over which putting is more difficult?

Given the nature of the turf I see only a pair of options - putt or pitch.

[Greg Tallman]

Garland,

from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.

I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.

What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.

[Jud_T]

1. yes, under some situations you can eliminate some humps and bumps.

2.  you can hit more of a feel shot from say 30 yards off the green uphill with a midiron or a rescue club than simply having to hammer a putter that's very difficult to judge.

[Anthony Gray]

Garland,

from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.

I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.

What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.

  There are many places that have bumps you want to clear before you want to let the ball roll out. Not best for a putter or a flop shot. Many of these are actually found on the putting surgface which is unique to this course and puts joy in shot selection. Putter can be used but not prefered because of the contours.

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

With the pros putting 4 wedges in thier bag, and everything going green and gushy....


Has the art of the 8 iron "bump and run" really gone by the way-side in the states?


(This was exactly how I learned to chip, before i even learned how to chip around the greens with a sw)  Its so much easier when you are new because so little can go wrong).

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.

I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.

What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.

I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard. That is why I said I may choose it downhill. However, we are discussing marginal differences here. From the rough, the differences would be gross.

[Anthony Gray]

I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard.

  THat's because with your height when you putt you look like a giraffe getting a drink of water.

  Anthony

 

[Greg Tallman]

Garland,

from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.

I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.

What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.

I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard. That is why I said I may choose it downhill. However, we are discussing marginal differences here. From the rough, the differences would be gross.

Had many a student say the same as they chunk and skull their way through a lesson.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

from what I can gather re: Old Mac it is either a putter or lofted pitch from VERY tight lies as the options. Even the better players are going to go with the percentages (putter) when score is important. I say I would love it and hit the pitches/flops a good bit as I no longer concern myself with score and try to have fun and hitting putter everytime on the 4-9 greens I would miss woudl not be fun. If playing for money and medal score was a factir my approach would likely be different.

I would seldom be playing a putter unless it was downhill. I most likely would be stroking it with a hybrid, or bumping it with a 7 iron. There are also enough sand hazards to clear that occaissionaly I would be lofting a pitch.

What are you avoiding by using those clubs? Just beacause it seems like a possible shot? Again with the tight fast turf putter is virtually ALWAYS the prudent play and by using anything that gets the ball in the air without eliminating an obstacle you are simply complicating the shot.

I clearly demonstrated to the person that tried to teach me to play that shot at Bandon that it is seldom the prudent play for my game. It may be ALWAYs the prudent play for your game, but not for mine. I am not good at hitting a putter hard. That is why I said I may choose it downhill. However, we are discussing marginal differences here. From the rough, the differences would be gross.

Had many a student say the same as they chunk and skull their way through a lesson.

Marginal differences are not chunks and skulls. Those are gross differences.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

It did hit me in a way I did not expect. Old Mac has many incredible holes. It just seems to have too big scale at times. I have only played Old Mac once thereby creating some apprehension saying anything. I know so many of those involved that i expected something very special. We all got something special. I again feel like it may be a bit too big a scale and to me loses some of the pure joy that makes Mac/Raynor courses such joy to play. It fits in on the property in a more natural way more so that most Mac/Raynor courses. Yet I felt it loses some of the fun around the greens. It may be the green speeds are kept to slow. Since Tom is posting, please explain the 18th green complex to me. It did not really seem like a punch bowl to me. Yet I loved the hole.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

I am not trying to "level the playing field" any more than I'm trying to "produce a balanced test of golf".  That's your interpretation, subtly influenced by your own biases.
I am trying to give each different description of golfer something they'll enjoy.  For the C players, it's getting them around in one piece.  For the A players, it's giving them a challenge.  I think Old Macdonald does both -- maybe too well for some people's tastes and preconceptions!
P.S.  I do not mean to be picking on you, in particular.  I am trying to discuss this in terms of "the better player" and their biases, which you have tried to articulate.

Tom,
No worries. I'm not really that worried about your intentions though or to speak for better players. They'd fire me as their spokesman! However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.  I do think that your comment about "Old Mac" doing both of your objectives is very true--perhaps too well, as you say!

[Joe Bentham]

I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there....

Stop it already.  Nobody plays 4 days a week at Bandon.

[Tom Jefferson]

That much is true, Joe..............that no staffer, local, or caddie plays that much.  I would wager that no one averages as much as twice a week. 
We supts. are playing this morning......OM....third time this calendar year!

[Terry Lavin]

I think there are two issues that are relatively key to the enjoyment and appreciation of Old Macdonald.  The first is mostly the vast visual "busy-ness" of the course.  There are a lot of spots on the golf course where one can look across the giant meadow and see nine or more holes.  This is visually disconcerting for some and thrilling for others.  One can appreciate it immediately, be turned off immediately or develop an appreciation for it.  The other aspect is the Brobdingnagian nature of most of the greens.  Some people look at those greens and their pupils begin to dilate with sporting pleasure.  Others see The Land of Four-Putts.

I love Old Macdonald.  It's like Sheep Ranch on steroids.  It's a fun, challenging and relatively unique course and it would be an amazing place to play Cross-Country golf.

[George Pazin]

However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.

And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.

Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.

The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.

[Greg Tallman]

However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.

And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.

Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.

The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.

Can a great course allow the following scenario all day long?

Good player hits tee shot down intedned line, Average player hits it 35 yards off line. Player are both in closely mown grass with a good chnace of hitting green in regulation.

Good player narrowly misses the green and is left with a very tough up and in. Average player rolls a hybrid that finishes in a better position that good player's near great shot.

Neither get u and down - Average player takes the hole with his stroke.

Good player has hit a pair of quality golf shots and penalized while the avergae player hits two stinkers and is rewarded... is that that good design?

[Jud_T]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too aggressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefore deserves to win.

[Garland Bayley]

I played with a guy that plays 4 days a week there....

Stop it already.  Nobody plays 4 days a week at Bandon.

Maybe you should talk to your starters who call him and his wife "dear" friends and exchange hugs with them.

Why don't you stop the BS?
Just because you are a caddy at Bandon, doesn't make you omnipotent.

[Garland Bayley]

However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.

And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.

Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.

The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.

Can a great course allow the following scenario all day long?

Good player hits tee shot down intedned line, Average player hits it 35 yards off line. Player are both in closely mown grass with a good chnace of hitting green in regulation.

Good player narrowly misses the green and is left with a very tough up and in. Average player rolls a hybrid that finishes in a better position that good player's near great shot.

Neither get u and down - Average player takes the hole with his stroke.

Good player has hit a pair of quality golf shots and penalized while the avergae player hits two stinkers and is rewarded... is that that good design?

No, it's bad statistics. Your sample size is one, dude.

[Tom_Doak]

Can a great course allow the following scenario all day long?

Good player hits tee shot down intedned line, Average player hits it 35 yards off line. Player are both in closely mown grass with a good chnace of hitting green in regulation.

Good player narrowly misses the green and is left with a very tough up and in. Average player rolls a hybrid that finishes in a better position that good player's near great shot.

Neither get u and down - Average player takes the hole with his stroke.

Good player has hit a pair of quality golf shots and penalized while the avergae player hits two stinkers and is rewarded... is that that good design?

Greg:

Your hypothetical example doesn't happen "all day long" at Old Macdonald or anywhere else.

The "average" player is not going to get lucky time and time again with those bad shots.  He's going to take some severe penalties occasionally, on almost any hole out there.  He could top it into the cross bunker short of the green on #1, for example, a bunker that's only in play for the good player if he tries to drive the green.  Every one of the par-3 holes [except maybe #8] is a potential triple bogey if you hit a really bad tee shot.

And the "good" player [if he has any brains at all] is not going to keep missing greens in places where he can't get up and down even with a good recovery shot.

The problem is that some "good" players are so fragile that if your example happens more than once or twice in 18 holes, they just fall apart mentally.

Do you really have a problem with it happening four times in eighteen holes?

[Greg Tallman]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.

Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke

[Garland Bayley]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.

Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke

Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.

[Jud_T]

ok. the average player hit 5 average shots with no blowups.  the good player hit 2 average shots and/or had poor course management.

[Greg Tallman]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.

Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke

Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

[Garland Bayley]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.

Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke

Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.