[Patrick_Mucci]

Does anybody play golf, or play golf with someone else who doesn't try to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible ?

[John_Conley]

What the heck are you talking about?

[Dan Kelly]

Patrick --

The ultimate thrill of the playing of golf, for me, is not the great score, but the "perfect" shot -- the difficult shot executed exactly as I'd pictured it in my wee brain.

So, yes: There have been times (many times!) when I have made an admittedly foolhardy attempt at a "perfect" shot, rather than a prudent shot almost certain to give me a lower score.

Life is too short to live prudently all the time.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I've seen any number of players who routinely get the ball as close to the hole as they think they ought to and just pick it up from there, never really getting it all the way into the hole. :-/

[THuckaby2]

I'm gonna beat Dan Kelly to this:  it's who is kidding WHOM, Pat.  

And I'd say I know quite a few people who play the game with score not being the top thing in their mind... of course the ultimate in this is Dan King, who is so score-averse he's basically given up playing at all... But there are others like him who most definitely don't try to get the hole in the fewest strokes possible every single hole.  They try shots that would otherwise be stupid, just for the heck of it, to see if they can make the shot... That is, they know the correct shot to give them the best chance at achieving the best score on a hole, but they disregard it because a riskier shot is more "fun."  That type of mindset is not at all uncommon among infrequent golfers... If one plays once a month or less, to me it's not very logical to focus on score.  Just hit the ball, hit shots you want to hit, have fun.

Personally I actively TRY to play this way but too many years of competitive golf just means I can't divorce connection to score completely from my game.  I really wish I could... But result is always going to matter, one way or the other.

I don't think this is what you're looking for, though....

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Conley,

Intent..... purpose.

Dan Kelly,

Doesn't the perfect shot result in a lower score than the prudent shot ?

RJ Daley,

Gimmes are permitted, and count as a stroke.

Tom Huckaby,

I purposely posted "Who is Kidding Who"

If someone isn't trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes, or playing Willie Nelson golf, what's the relevance of the architecture to their endeavor, if they have one ?

What is their purpose for hitting the ball ?
Are they not target or area directed ?
Do they aim for woods, lakes, or bunkers as opposed to fairways and greens ?

Why not just play from a tee, to any other spot or hole on the golf course.  Do they follow the sequential order of holes ?
Why ?

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

I dunno, but I've heard there are people who play golf for the company, the fresh air, and the exercise.

Imagine that!!  

[Dan Kelly]

Dan Kelly,

Doesn't the perfect shot result in a lower score than the prudent shot ?

Yes, it does -- if I pull it off. The perfect shot attempted-but-not-executed (which must happen at least half the time) usually results in a HIGHER score.

I play prudently in any sort of competitive situation -- but am perfectly content to be Mittyish when nothing's on the line except a score ... a score I usually won't turn in if I'm consciously playing what-the-hell, in-the-long-run-we're-all-dead golf.

[JakaB]

I now play a third of my rounds with hickory clubs...I don't score as well...primarily due to the lack of modern wedges and putters....but when I do play with hickories I try to score as low as possible just for the purpose of winning bets.   I also play alot of golf from a set of tees that I can not seem to break 80 from...I could move up and lower my score...but I still do my best to win my bets....and I spend more time strapping on my swashbuckles than warming up....yes this causes a higher score also.....In all instances I know from the start these actions are going to hurt my chance at getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible....but I can't seem to find a cure.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I'll answer questions if you promise not to ask so many and offer some thoughts of your own after this.  But before that, one question for you:  WHY did you purposefully use incorrect grammar?

As for your questions...

If someone isn't trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes, or playing Willie Nelson golf, what's the relevance of the architecture to their endeavor, if they have one ?
It's of little relevance.  Man does not live by architecture alone and I'd dare say the VAST majority of people playing the game could absolutely give a crap about what we call "architecture."  They enjoy the hole if it's pretty and well-conditioned.  They might enjoy it MORE if it is well designed, either knowingly or not, but that is very secondary to looks and conditioning.

What is their purpose for hitting the ball ?
To have fun.  That can be achieved in many ways other than basing it purely on score achieved.

Are they not target or area directed ?
Sure they are, of course.

Do they aim for woods, lakes, or bunkers as opposed to fairways and greens ?
Nope.

Why not just play from a tee, to any other spot or hole on the golf course.  Do they follow the sequential order of holes ?
Why ?
Of course they follow the order of holes, lest they get kicked off the course.  Rules do exist and they follow them.

You seem to be taking this to silly extremes.  My sole point remains that MANY people play the game with score being far from the top of their priorities.  Your point?

TH

[Dan Kelly]

I can't seem to find a cure.

No cure necessary. But you knew that, didn't you?

[CHrisB]

Pat,

I'll come at it from the opposite angle.  Other than touring professionals (and even this is a relatively recent practice), I think the vast majority of golfers don't try to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible.  Rather, I think the vast majority of golfers try to register a good score, one that falls within their comfort zone and perceived range of abilities.  Really, I see more players trying to protect against a high score than trying to shoot the lowest score possible.

To me, trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible requires playing shots (especally approach shots) that fall just within the upper end of a player's range of ability.  It means taking chances in the hopes that they will pay off.  Just trying to hit the fairway, hit the green and two-putt is not trying to shoot the lowest score possible.  Playing shots well within your ability--smart shots, conservative shots--is not trying to shoot the lowest possible score.  It's trying to shoot a reasonably good score, trying to keep a score from getting away.

Look at the way players are playing now on the PGA Tour.  It used to be that you could have one average to poor round and get away with it, but it's much harder to do that now and still win (other than the majors, as Mike Weir showed in the Masters).  Everyone is going low every day, and they're doing it with aggressive play, trying to birdie every hole (and eagle the par 5's).

But even there, if a pro has a 3-shot lead going into #18 at Pebble Beach, then he's playing it as a 3-shot hole, preventing the high number and NOT trying to shoot the lowest score possible.

What's the lowest a touring professional can shoot--59?  Are they trying shoot as low as possible every round?  Perhaps.

What's the lowest an 8-handicapper can shoot--68?  Are they trying to shoot as low as possible every round?  Doubtful.  They're probably trying to shoot a good score for their handicap, and trying not to shoot high.

Let's go back to #16 Cypress Point.  If you have the length to reach that green given that day's playing conditions, then if you are trying to shoot the lowest score possible you will go for that green and try to make 2 or 3.  If you are trying to protect a good score, or trying not to let your score blow up, then you lay up and prevent the high number.

Not to say that everyone who goes for #16 CPC does it for score--rather, many do it for the exhilaration of attempting the shot, which to them outweighs the threat of letting their score blow up.

But again, there is a huge difference between trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible, and trying to get the ball in the hole in a reasonable amount of strokes while protecting against a high score.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are always some players trying to sandbag their way to a higher handicap.....

Some people claim to play to entertain business associates, but if they entertain them by breaking a putter over their knee, somehow, I think they are still playing for score.....

Sometimes, you have to go out of the way to let an associate win in business situations.  Suppose you are playing with the President, or the time I played with Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura.  It's bad form to beat the chief.....

I have let my kids win a hole from me to encourage them to play.  Now, my son lets me win one once in a while.....

From time to time, I may be working on other shots, like putt to different hole locations, trying to keep the low, high, draw, or fade, whether or not my score is as good as possible that day, hoping for a better score some future day....

Lastly, when in Scotland, I will play the bump and run, even if deep down, I feel I could probaby fly the ball to the hole better, just becuase, well its Scotland.....

And I heard a story about some electrician in California who PURPOSELY played for the Devil's Asshole Bunker at Pine Valley!

Imagine that!

Generally, though, I try to get the best score possible.

[Dan Kelly]

Suppose you are playing with the President, or the time I played with Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura.  It's bad form to beat the chief.....

I've seen you play, in person, and I've seen Mr. Ventura swing the driver, on tape -- and I'll say this: You had to have been workin' awful damned hard to let him beat you!

Or has he, Furyk-like, somehow managed to groove that terrible swing of his?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Sometimes it comes down to letting them win, with handicap!

I did four putt the last green to lose, but you've seen me putt, so you know I have "plausible deniability" that I tanked.

[Mike Benham]

If someone isn't trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes, or playing Willie Nelson golf, what's the relevance of the architecture to their endeavor, if they have one ?

Whoa there for a second.  Architecture is defined as the science or art of designing and erecting structures.  So how is that relevant to getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes?

Let's not confuse course management and strategy and architecure when getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes.

Mike

[Michael Dugger]

Yes, I do it all the time.  Play with no concern for my score, that is.  Like Dan Kelly, there is something about that perfect shot.  Mr. Mucci attempted to divert focus from this by pointing out that the perfect shot increases your chances at a better score......but I say not if it is the fifth ball you are playing!!  Sort of a la Kevin Costner in that movie.  Plunk six balls into the drink then hole out from 250.  Gotta love it!!

My playing partner likes to remind me that my only hole-in-one was a mulligan.  I hate it, it's sort of like Roger Maris' home run record.  But, when you are thrilled with a round in 80's (thus generally shooting in the 90's) sometimes a great great shot is what keeps you coming back.  I don't give a damn about scoring, really, the feeling of dropping a sixty foot bomb or chipping-in outweighs the bragging rights that come along with a nice round.  It truly is about enjoyment and friendship.    

[Dan Kelly]

Is this as simple as "sandbagging" or "being a 'bandit'"

I thought that I was the one in outer space.

To whom is that question directed, I wonder.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

There have been times when I've put the idea of score aside and just thrown down balls at places I want to play shots from. Admittedly, I haven't done it very often, but there are times when it can be a lot of fun.

I did exactly that one day at the California Golf Club in San Francisco. On this occasion, I was playing rather poorly, spraying tee shots all over the place so that by the back nine I felt I wasn't even seeing the golf course - at least not the normal approach shots. So, I asked my gracious host if he would mind me just playing the shots I wanted to play and he said go for it.

As Dan Kelly suggested, at least I took home 2 or 3 memorable shots rather than just having an unpleasant day due to some awfully bad tee shots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Originally I tried to use a play on words from Abbott & Costello's skit on baseball, "Who's on first ?"
But, it didn't fit, so I opted for a hybrid.

I find the notion that people play the game of golf for reasons other than trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, as nonsensical.

Imagine playing with someone who rejoices in taking an average of 28 strokes per hole, just so that they can prolong their communication with nature.  Couple that with playing with someone who never enters into some sort of wager, be it a drink, dollar, a donut, or bragging rights.  
To wander aimlessly, hitting a ball without any regard or desire to get it into the hole as quickly, and in as few strokes as possible strikes me as absurd.  Who would want to play with these nomads ?

When's the last time you saw someone having fun when they just hit 3 balls out of bounds, or left 3 shots in the same bunker, 4 or 5 putted the 18th green, or topped their tee shot on the first tee ?  How about the fun they get when shanking twice in a row ?  If one's to judge by the disposition of the golfers walking off the 18th green, fun times might not be how they viewed their last 4+ hours.

Chris B,

A 28 handicap doesn't play the game of a scratch handicap.
Scoring, or attempting to score is relative.
Most golfers would like to improve their ability to play the game, to score lower.  Do  you know any who like to shoot higher and higher scores ?  Would you want to play with them?

Jeff Brauer,

I think the example of encouraging the kids is an example of a more important pursuit, one that takes precedence over a game of golf.  

The other examples you cited I view as practice or the once in a lifetime experience.

The focus was on normal day to day play, and not the first and possibly last time that you'll ever experience a particular golf course.

My question was directed at the denial syndrome that some seem to favor.

Mike Benham,

I think you missed the point.
A function of the architecture is to defend par.
The placement of architectural features is a function of par.

MDugger,

If it's the 5th ball you're playing, you're not playing golf.
You may be practicing, or enjoying a unique challenge, not to mention your complete disregard for those golfers behind you.

Trying to execute perfect shots is what golfers constantly strive for as they traverse the golf course.

Enjoyment and friendship can be attained in many places.
Taking 28 shots per hole won't be enjoyable to your playing partners, and the friendship may become strained.

Tim Weiman,

I've often done the same thing, but, I view it as practice or a rare opportunity.

In 50 years of playing golf, I've yet to meet a golfer to whom scoring or shooting better scores didn't matter.
Maybe, those guys are just drawn to this site.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, they may be permitted to pick'em up, but anyone who knows me and had an ounce of brains would concede nothing to me.  I missed 3 putts just today of 18" or less.  

I identify most closely with Dan and Mike in that I also can't stay with the mindset of a whole round thinking logically as to how to get the ball in the hole in the least number of strokes, while considering the percentages with my realistic abilities.  I am one of the cursed who thinks they can hit their best shot possible from every circumstance I find myself in all of the time.  Of course, I make those shots about 1 in a 100 times, and lose plenty of strokes the rest of the time trying to be all I can be.  

This thread was on my mind this very day, pathetically trying to reform my thinking for a whole round to think in terms of getting the ball in the hole in the least strokes considering realistically my abilities, but alas I succumb to the allure of the self dellusional idea that I could play every stroke as if it would be my best possible and wind up goofing myself to a worse situation than if I'd have played prudently (which I can, but I can't).  

So Pat, speaking for myself, I am kidding myself.  I don't play the game in an intellectual sense by thinking of getting the ball in the hole in the least number of strokes rationally, or intellectually.  I play golf by thinking I can make the next shot and the next the way the design calls for and the archie challenged simply because I might make it if I get it just right...  The few times I do it right, keeps me coming back.  But, with that sort of mentality, I should be legally banned from ever betting on my golf matches. :-/

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

Sometimes it is difficult for me to decide between the shot that will contribute to the lowest score and the shot that will look the best. Harvey Penick, who I am unsuccessfully trying to introduce to this board, explicitly advises against the good looking shot.

I am not talking about risky or unrealistic shots, but rather shots that are hit harder, fly higher, spin so much that they curve both ways. Shot that look and sound great, which are unlikely to do much harm to the scorecard, but are not really geared towards the lowest score possible.

Penick talks about a "soft wedge" which is hit slightly behind the ball to accomodate the bounce on the club. He says that the shot does not have a crisp feel, and for that reason I would be unlikely to attempt it.

The more I think about it, the more golf is an aestheic experience for me, (and that aesthetic includes the actual numbers written on the scorecard!) and I am becoming more sympathetic to Tom Fazio and his obsession with framing.

So, while I am really truly trying to get the ball into the hole with a scant number of strokes, I cannot say that I am after the fewest possible.  I would much rather have a 77 hitting the ball flush each time than a 74 which includes a few foozled approaches that roll up close.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

I think the only shot that one can focus on is the shot at hand.  Looking ahead, or looking back can be dangerous business, and detrimental to immediate performance.

Unlike chess, golf relies on physical execution and the variables created by nature, land and luck, to set up the next shot.

It is not the particular shot that is important, but the attempt to execute the shot that will successfully accomplish the mission that is important, irrespective of its qualities, heroic or conservative.

One may not attempt a heroic shot because they don't feel capable of executing it.  Others may attempt a heroic shot because they believe they can execute it, despite the lack of talent required to execute it.  But, mentally, they are equal, both are attempting to play the shot that they feel will have the most successful result and enable them to score better.

Michael Moore,

I've sometimes felt the same way, that I would rather play well while scoring poorly, then play poorly while scoring well, but, in both cases, I'm attempting to do my best to shoot the lowest possible score.  Unfortunately, the golf gods see it differently.

I want to know WHO really doesn't care how they play and what they shoot.

[Barry_Kruger]

Mr. Dugger- I have lurked here for a while and I notice that you have trouble with your temper and little or no sense of humor. Do you have anything to contribute that is golf related?

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby,

Originally I tried to use a play on words from Abbott & Costello's skit on baseball, "Who's on first ?"
But, it didn't fit, so I opted for a hybrid.

I find the notion that people play the game of golf for reasons other than trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, as nonsensical.

Imagine playing with someone who rejoices in taking an average of 28 strokes per hole, just so that they can prolong their communication with nature.  Couple that with playing with someone who never enters into some sort of wager, be it a drink, dollar, a donut, or bragging rights.  
To wander aimlessly, hitting a ball without any regard or desire to get it into the hole as quickly, and in as few strokes as possible strikes me as absurd.  Who would want to play with these nomads ?

When's the last time you saw someone having fun when they just hit 3 balls out of bounds, or left 3 shots in the same bunker, 4 or 5 putted the 18th green, or topped their tee shot on the first tee ?  How about the fun they get when shanking twice in a row ?  If one's to judge by the disposition of the golfers walking off the 18th green, fun times might not be how they viewed their last 4+ hours.

Patrick:

First law of comedy:  if you have to explain it, it's not funny.    Just giving you a hard time.  I get the intent re the incorrect grammar and it was a worthwhile effort.

Re all the rest, again, I just think you're taking this to absurd extremes.  No one I know does ANY of the things you suggest here.  Yet MANY people I know either don't keep score at all, or do hit shots that are absolutely stupid (ie very low percentage), just for the sake of trying such.  They don't play enough golf to be focused on "score"... sure, they prefer to have a good score if they are keeping such, but rather than grind out bogeys produced by Moriartian lay-ups, they'll be much happier with one low-percentage shot pulled off successfully, giving one great score on one hole (if it even gives a great score, sometimes they miss the putt), to go with their 6 other doubles and triples.

My point is you can't take this to an absolute extreme on either end... it's incorrect to say that ALL golfers try to get the hole in the fewest number of strokes ALL the time.  It's really not even close.

In fact I'd venture to say the ONLY golfer I know who plays this way - trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes ALL the time - is in fact David Moriarty.  Maybe you do so yourself.  

I refer you to all the talk about 16 Cypress, if you haven't read that.  It remains a polarizing example.  If I'm playing for the fewest number of strokes, highest percentage of obtaining such, then in any sort of wind I go left.  As stated in that thread, going left isn't in my reality on that golf hole and it takes a VERY extreme example for me to see that it ever would.

See the difference here?

So I'd agree with you if you say the intent of golf shots is to produce a favorable result... obviously only the most "spiritual" would hit shots willy-nilly with absolutely no care for direction or result... but really no one does that - it's just not correct to say that all golfers play to try and make the fewest number of strokes all the time.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()