[Garland Bayley]

Tee it forward is an aberration to the game of golf. It is an attempt to make stroke counting a form of ego massage ( IMMHO). In the beginning, the number of strokes played was not even tallied for a hole, let alone a round.

I found the origins of golf "scoring" in Robert S. MacDonald's publisher's note to Playing the Like by Bernard Darwin.

"What does Playing the Like mean? In the early days of golf the only form of play was the match between two sides, decided by holes. The idea of counting the number of each player's strokes had never suggested itself."

"When King James IV went out to "play at the Golfe with the Earle of Bothuile" on February 3, 1504, in the first match of which any record has come down to us, the method of scoring was as follows. At the first hole the Earl, let us suppose, had the longer of the two drives, so that the King would be the first to play. He would play the odd -- one more shot than his opponent. Then it would be the Earl's turn to hit his drive, and he would be playing the like, that is, the same number of strokes as the King. They simply kept track of who was behind or ahead in the number of strokes as they holed out without knowing how many total strokes had been required to hole out."

He goes on to point out that a large competition was a group of individual matches, and the winner of a match by the largest number of holes was the winner of the competition. And, that a team competition was won by the team that won the most holes in the matches.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland, do you believe in evolution?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, do you believe in evolution?

Yes, for living organisms.

Do you believe in evolution for chess? checkers? go?
baseball? soccer?

[Joe Stansell]

Do you believe in evolution for chess? checkers? go?
baseball? soccer?

I do, at least when it comes to soccer. The world demands goal line technology!

[Garland Bayley]

Do you believe in evolution for chess? checkers? go?
baseball? soccer?

I do, at least when it comes to soccer. The world demands goal line technology!

The subject is about scoring a game. What evolution of scoring soccer games is there besides shootouts for ties?

[Joe Stansell]

Goal line technology is about scoring. Did the ball cross the goal line, or didn't it?

But if you want a better example, how about the three-point shot in basketball?

Back in your court, so to speak.

[Garland Bayley]

No Joe, goal line technology is about refereeing.

Basketball went through devolution instead of evolution when they put in the stupid three point shot.
Proper evolution would have been to raise the basket to 12 feet.

[Pete_Pittock]

Garland,
NO NO NO. Playing it forward means choosing the right set of tees. At that point you can choose match play or stroke play.
I'm not an Opus Dei type on the golf course.

[A.G._Crockett]

No Joe, goal line technology is about refereeing.

Basketball went through devolution instead of evolution when they put in the stupid three point shot.
Proper evolution would have been to raise the basket to 12 feet.

Since we've already threadjacked...

The three-point shot, stupid or not, was added because of the shot clock to force defenses to come out and play the game.  It was NOT put in to bring the little man back to the game.

And the 12' goal would have had the opposite effect, just like longer golf courses have made length more important instead of less.  As the late Al McGuire said, if you want to bring the little man back into the game, put the basket in a hole in the ground, not higher than it already is.

But the point of my original question was because you seem to believe that the game of golf would be better if we played it as it was first constituted hundreds of years ago.  Really, of course, all you are describing is match play, which has absolutely ZERO to do with multiple tees or the Play It Forward initiative, since different tees are factored into the handicapping system for match and stroke play. 

Stroke play, the handicapping system and multiple tees are evolution, just as you walking upright (I presume) is evolution.  There isn't a value judgment attached to that, but it is evolution nonetheless.  If you want to turn back the clock, be careful not to scrape your knuckles on the way out to the cave.

[David Kelly]

Garland, do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in evolution for chess? checkers? go?
baseball? soccer?

So then to follow your logic since pitchers were not allowed to throw overhand in baseball until 1884 (at a time when it took 6 balls for a walk) and the mound was between 45' and 55' until 1893 and there were no balks until 1898 then every baseball game played since the days of Old Hoss Radbourne and Pud Galvin has been the antithesis of Base Ball?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in evolution for chess? checkers? go?
baseball? soccer?

So then to follow your logic since pitchers were not allowed to throw overhand in baseball until 1884 (at a time when it took 6 balls for a walk) and the mound was between 45' and 55' until 1893 and there were no balks until 1898 then every baseball game played since the days of Old Hoss Radbourne and Pud Galvin has been the antithesis of Base Ball?

Again! We are discussing scoring here. Presumably you still had to round the bases and cross the plate to put a mark on the "card".  The analogy you are making would be to things like the mallet putter and the sand wedge.

[Tim Nugent]

Garland - just what does pla it forward have to do with scoring? I was under the impression it was to allow youngsters and othe short hitters to move up to where the course was manageable and allowed play at a pace that didn't piss off the other players.

[David Kelly]

Garland, do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in evolution for chess? checkers? go?
baseball? soccer?

So then to follow your logic since pitchers were not allowed to throw overhand in baseball until 1884 (at a time when it took 6 balls for a walk) and the mound was between 45' and 55' until 1893 and there were no balks until 1898 then every baseball game played since the days of Old Hoss Radbourne and Pud Galvin has been the antithesis of Base Ball?

Again! We are discussing scoring here. Presumably you still had to round the bases and cross the plate to put a mark on the "card".  The analogy you are making would be to things like the mallet putter and the sand wedge.

First of all as Pete Pittock explained "Tee It Forward" (the real name of the concept) is only about getting people to play the correct tees for their level of game.  What did you think it was?
http://www.playgolfamerica.com/index.cfm?action=teeitforward

Secondly they have changed the scoring rules in baseball a number of times.  Up until the 30s what we call ground rule doubles were counted as homeruns.

[Garland Bayley]

Since we've already threadjacked...

The three-point shot, stupid or not, was added because of the shot clock to force defenses to come out and play the game.  It was NOT put in to bring the little man back to the game.

And the 12' goal would have had the opposite effect, just like longer golf courses have made length more important instead of less.  As the late Al McGuire said, if you want to bring the little man back into the game, put the basket in a hole in the ground, not higher than it already is.

Thanks for referencing Al McGuire. I never figured he had much on the ball. His opinion would differ with that of Ralph Miller, a long time advocate of the 12' goal.

But the point of my original question was because you seem to believe that the game of golf would be better if we played it as it was first constituted hundreds of years ago.  Really, of course, all you are describing is match play, which has absolutely ZERO to do with multiple tees or the Play It Forward initiative, since different tees are factored into the handicapping system for match and stroke play. 

I would classify that as a lack of insight. Match play has everything to do with multiple tees and Play it Forward in being a huge contrast with it. What is the point of Play it Forward if not to improve your stroke play result? Match play, as witnessed by the "play the odd" and "play the like" is all about a back and forth, for which it matters not how long the hole is.
 
Stroke play, the handicapping system and multiple tees are evolution, just as you walking upright (I presume) is evolution.  There isn't a value judgment attached to that, but it is evolution nonetheless.  If you want to turn back the clock, be careful not to scrape your knuckles on the way out to the cave.

But, you see the current handicapping is a devolution. The original handicapping systems devised by Old Tom and others were not based on stroke play. And I am not talking about turning back the clock. If you go to your typical golf club where you find regular groups getting together for their regular match, are they playing stroke play? Whether it be for a Nassau, Skins, or Wolf, it is primarily conducted match play.

[David Kelly]

Garland,

You know you don't have to post every thought that comes into your head on GCA. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
NO NO NO. Playing it forward means choosing the right set of tees. At that point you can choose match play or stroke play.
I'm not an Opus Dei type on the golf course.

Pete,

If you and I were to play a match, what difference would it make what tees we played?

When Kalen and I play a match he always chooses tees beyond what his capabilities or handicap would indicate he should. We still have a great time. Well, maybe I have a little greater time than he does.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in evolution for chess? checkers? go?
baseball? soccer?

So then to follow your logic since pitchers were not allowed to throw overhand in baseball until 1884 (at a time when it took 6 balls for a walk) and the mound was between 45' and 55' until 1893 and there were no balks until 1898 then every baseball game played since the days of Old Hoss Radbourne and Pud Galvin has been the antithesis of Base Ball?

Again! We are discussing scoring here. Presumably you still had to round the bases and cross the plate to put a mark on the "card".  The analogy you are making would be to things like the mallet putter and the sand wedge.

First of all as Pete Pittock explained "Tee It Forward" (the real name of the concept) is only about getting people to play the correct tees for their level of game.  What did you think it was?
http://www.playgolfamerica.com/index.cfm?action=teeitforward

Thanks for the correction. I hadn't noticed Pete's correction.

Secondly they have changed the scoring rules in baseball a number of times.  Up until the 30s what we call ground rule doubles were counted as homeruns.

Did not the hitter circle the bases and cross the plate, and have it counted as 1 run?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

You know you don't have to post every thought that comes into your head on GCA.  

David,

Don't you think this is related to Golf Architecture? There was a discussion during the golden age about making courses have 12 holes, but still be the same length. I.e., eliminate some of the greens on existing courses so that you only had 12 holes. They were concerned that putting was too important. It just seems to me that given they were playing the odd and playing the like, they were not concerned with how long a hole was, and whether it could be reached in regulation. They were proposing the antithesis of Tee it Forward. Is it such a sin that I should propose a similar proposition?

[Sam Morrow]

I thought Tee It Forward was more about people playing the right tees so they can get around the course quicker.

[Garland Bayley]

I thought Tee It Forward was more about people playing the right tees so they can get around the course quicker.

From the PGA website.

“Simply put, TEE IT FORWARD can make golf much more fun for millions of people,” said PGA of America President Allen Wronowski. “We believe that by moving up to another set of tees, golfers will experience an exciting, new approach to the game that will produce more enjoyment and elevate their desire to come back and play even more golf."

Barney Adams, the founder of Adams Golf, provided the concept that led to TEE IT FORWARD. By playing from forward tees, amateur golfers have the chance to play the course at the same relative distance as a touring professional would over 18 holes. The playing field is leveled by giving golfers the opportunity to play from distances that are properly aligned with their abilities.

With many more golfers hitting approach shots with 6- and 7-irons instead of hybrids and long irons, their chances for enjoyment increase. Also, playing from forward tees should result in fewer overall shots, shorter distance traveled on each hole, and potentially, fewer lost balls.

“The passion that golfers have for our game has the potential to be enhanced by the TEE IT FORWARD initiative," said Jim Hyler, president of the United States Golf Association. "This is an innovation that we think will appeal to golfers of all skill levels because it gives them a new challenge that better aligns with their abilities. We hope that TEE IT FORWARD will be embraced by players and golf facilities across the country."

If they think it will lead to faster rounds, then IMO they don't understand what makes slow rounds. IMO personal habits of players make slow rounds, and golf course obstacles make slow rounds. Too many golf courses have the back tees located nearby the greens, not the front tees. You still have to walk to the forward tees.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Secondly they have changed the scoring rules in baseball a number of times.  Up until the 30s what we call ground rule doubles were counted as homeruns.

David,

Wouldn't you agree this is more directly analogous to the USGA flip flopping on the penalty for lost ball and OB, between stroke, and stroke and distance. Whereas, hole won or lost is more directly analogous to runner crossed plate?

[Joe Leenheer]

Agree with the pace argument. Players hitting less shots, would take less time. How much? It takes me about an hour and a half to make 36 strokes and 3+ hours to make 72.  So if you have someone playing from too far and shooting 100, would they not play faster playing from closer and shooting 70?

And SOME may find it more enjoyable and less strenuous. I however will continue to punish myself by marching as far back as I can :-)

[Garland Bayley]

Agree with the pace argument. Players hitting less shots, would take less time. How much? It takes me about an hour and a half to make 36 strokes and 3+ hours to make 72.  So if you have someone playing from too far and shooting 100, would they not play faster playing from closer and shooting 70?

And SOME may find it more enjoyable and less strenuous. I however will continue to punish myself by marching as far back as I can :-)

I don't know what you fully intended, but the way it is written it seems to imply that time is directly proportional to score. I have evidence it is inversely proportional, as I can shoot 100 for 18 and play it in 2 hours walking. I have to wonder why it takes you so long to shoot 72.

Assuming that someone can shoot 100 from back and then move closer and shoot 70 is a bad assumption. Someone that shoots 100, might more likely shoot 96 by moving forward. And if they take an enormously slow 1 minute per stroke, they have saved four minutes.

[Brent Hutto]

Ok I've played some really, truly fun rounds of golf on courses as short as 5,400 yards (Par 69). Then again I've played really fun rounds at courses 20% longer than that. But if I were a billionaire having a course built for me to play every day it would be a course where I did not need driver to reach two or three of the 1-shot holes, where many of the 2-shot holes let me use driver and a shortish iron and not more than maybe one hole on the entire course was unreachable with three pretty decent shots, given my game.

So it probably ends up looking like about 5,600-6,100 yards depending on terrain and whether the Par is 69, 70, 71, or 72. But I'm not a billionaire so if I always play the course from the tips (as you imply is the real game) I'm stuck playing courses that may not let me hit a single shot to a green with an iron over the course of 18 holes. Where "par" as a concept only applies meaningfully to maybe half a dozen holes. Where there might be only one or two legitimate 1-shot holes in the entire layout. I could still have fun but not near as much fun as on a course that suits my game.

But wait, I can move up to the 5,900 yard tees on most courses and get exactly what billionaire-me would order custom built. It's quite remarkable how a little 50-80 yard stroll before teeing off on each hole creates such a huge increment in my enjoyment. And if I happen to share the course with some longer-hitting kindred spirits, they can play a very different course just by putting their peg in a different spot on the ground. Brilliant!

[Garland Bayley]

Ok I've played some really, truly fun rounds of golf on courses as short as 5,400 yards (Par 69). Then again I've played really fun rounds at courses 20% longer than that. But if I were a billionaire having a course built for me to play every day it would be a course where I did not need driver to reach two or three of the 1-shot holes, where many of the 2-shot holes let me use driver and a shortish iron and not more than maybe one hole on the entire course was unreachable with three pretty decent shots, given my game.

Why do you have to measure yourself against par to have a really fun round of golf? Do you not have a group of like talented players that you play matches agains?

So it probably ends up looking like about 5,600-6,100 yards depending on terrain and whether the Par is 69, 70, 71, or 72.

Of course in "the Golfe" there was no concept of par.

But I'm not a billionaire so if I always play the course from the tips (as you imply is the real game) I'm stuck playing courses that may not let me hit a single shot to a green with an iron over the course of 18 holes.

Unless you are particularly deadly with your woods or "metals", I'm willing to bet that you hit almost all your shots to the green with an iron.

Part of my point is that for the first few centuries of golf, this modern concept of par, and reaching par four holes in two, etc. didn't exist. It didn't need to exist, because they weren't even scoring with total strokes per hole. Instead, they were enjoying the back and forth in play on a hole. Notice the description above by MacDonald that the second shot was a "drive".

Of course another thing that plays into this is "improvements" to the ball. In the first couple of centuries there was a much smaller distance variation between the long hitters and the short hitters, and no one reached the 1st at St. Andrews in two shots. As I am sure you are aware Brent, I am a long time advocate of reining in the ball.

Where "par" as a concept only applies meaningfully to maybe half a dozen holes. Where there might be only one or two legitimate 1-shot holes in the entire layout. I could still have fun but not near as much fun as on a course that suits my game.

But wait, I can move up to the 5,900 yard tees on most courses and get exactly what billionaire-me would order custom built. It's quite remarkable how a little 50-80 yard stroll before teeing off on each hole creates such a huge increment in my enjoyment.

Your dissertation really makes me wonder how you derive your enjoyment. Do you not like hitting golf balls? Do you not like competing against friends in match play? Is your course so boring as to only provide interest in reaching the green? Are there no rolls in the ground that test your ability on the various lies? Are there no hazards to navigate around?

And if I happen to share the course with some longer-hitting kindred spirits, they can play a very different course just by putting their peg in a different spot on the ground. Brilliant!

EDIT: Of course Patrick would find me in remiss if I didn't ask you whether you had wind to contend with at your home course too.
I guess I comes down to this. Would you enjoy playing TOC with a guttie? feathery?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()