If "A" purpose of a golf course is to provide a thorough examination of

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's why I ask Pat,

It's very feasible to play the last three holes at Pine Valley or Seminole with the same approach club but from a difference of 50 yards to the target.
"Feasible" as in one in a million.

I've never played the last three holes with the same club or anything close to the same club.

Please avoid hypothetical examples

#16 at Pine Valley could ask for an 8 iron from 175 yards with a full high blast down the hill and downwind while #17 could also be an 8 iron from 125 or 130 up the hill into the wind. The shot into 16 could just as easily be a comfortable 7 iron and the shot into 17 could be a hard 9 iron but because I choose the way I do, you have argued this is a knock against the golf course...

Jim,

Isolating only two holes in a distinct and unusual wind environment in a hypothetical situation is a flawed premise.

Please think globally.


Now, if "tactical balance" means the play yardage of the approach shot then I'd agree to the extent that it's AN ingredient in the overall analysis but maybe not the only one as Jason Thurman suggested many posts ago.

What don't you, Jason and others understand about the word "A" ?  ?  ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

For you, I'll say, all of your clubs. 

Most golfers who carry 14 clubs do so with the intent of using them when the situation arises.

While I love to play lot's of "ginky" shots, when I'm playing a serious round I select the club that most easily gets the ball from point "A" to point "B", and it's in that context that I've framed the question.

[JESII]

"What don't you, Jason and others understand about the word "A" ?  ?  ?"

The golfer's game, is the overall quality of the architecture determined by how many of the 14 clubs the golfer uses during their round ?

Maybe it's juxtaposition to the word "THE" in your opening thesis...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

IF "A".......

[Dan King]

Patrick_Mucci writes:
Most golfers who carry 14 clubs do so with the intent of using them when the situation arises.

The limit of 14 clubs was chosen arbitrarily. It could just as easy be a different number. It's a rules issue not a design issue. If the rule was 7 clubs, the above sentence would mean just as much but with a seven rather than a 14.   You seem to see something magical with the number 14. Why?

While I love to play lot's of "ginky" shots, when I'm playing a serious round I select the club that most easily gets the ball from point "A" to point "B", and it's in that context that I've framed the question.

I'm betting you don't carry enough clubs. Wouldn't you be even more serious with 28 clubs?

Cheers,
Dan King

All truly American sports are equipment intensive. Basketball was strickly for hoop-over-the-barn-door Hoosiers and Jersey City Y's until two-hundred-dollar gym shoes were invented. And synchronized swimming will never make it to network prime time because how often do you need new nose plugs?
 --P.J. O'Rourke

[JESII]

Pat,

To quote:

"If "A" purpose of a golf course is to provide a thorough examination of the golfer's game, is the overall quality of the architecture determined by how many of the 14 clubs the golfer uses during their round ?"




I'll concede that "A" purpose of the golf course is to provide a thorough examination of the golfer's game.

I will disagree that "THE" overall quality of the architecture is determined by how many of the 14 clubs the golfer uses during their round.

My example from Pine Valley is not one in a million. Based on the elevation changes of those two holes, a decent wind blowing down 16 would provide exactly that scenario. Seminole will have many similar examples due to a combination of wind and firmness as opposed to the wind and elevation situations at Pine Valley.

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, no one has any problem understanding the word "A." Your perception that everyone else misunderstands your premise stems from the fact that your topic sentence is poorly written because it automatically creates a fallacy.

"If 'A' purpose of a golf course is to provide a thorough examination of the golfer's game, is the overall quality of the architecture determined by how many of the 14 clubs the golfer uses during their round ?"

The answer is no BECAUSE OF the word "A." You can't assess the OVERALL QUALITY of the architecture by addressing A PURPOSE of the golf course.

Also, let me save you some time on replying:

Pat, no one has any problem understanding the word "A." Your perception that everyone else misunderstands your premise stems from the fact that your topic sentence is poorly written because it automatically creates a fallacy.

No, it doesn't. Again your misunderstand.

"If 'A' purpose of a golf course is to provide a thorough examination of the golfer's game, is the overall quality of the architecture determined by how many of the 14 clubs the golfer uses during their round ?"

The answer is no BECAUSE OF the word "A." You can't assess the OVERALL QUALITY of the architecture by addressing A PURPOSE of the golf course.

No it's not. Please avoid using simple rules of the English language. Name 5 golf courses on which you can hit only two clubs and still receive a stern test. Everyone who can't see that the premise is correct needs to reread the original post until they understand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick_Mucci writes:
Most golfers who carry 14 clubs do so with the intent of using them when the situation arises.

The limit of 14 clubs was chosen arbitrarily. It could just as easy be a different number. It's a rules issue not a design issue. If the rule was 7 clubs, the above sentence would mean just as much but with a seven rather than a 14.   You seem to see something magical with the number 14. Why?

Because that's what the rules allow

While I love to play lot's of "ginky" shots, when I'm playing a serious round I select the club that most easily gets the ball from point "A" to point "B", and it's in that context that I've framed the question.

I'm betting you don't carry enough clubs. Wouldn't you be even more serious with 28 clubs?


I wouldn't mind 15.  Then I could carry a short putter for long putts and a long putter for short putts and still retain my trusty 2-iron.

As to 28 clubs, I'd never make it to the second tee.

With your limited set would you be willing to play in a scratch competition or for money against those who carry 14 clubs ?
Cheers,
Dan King

All truly American sports are equipment intensive. Basketball was strickly for hoop-over-the-barn-door Hoosiers and Jersey City Y's until two-hundred-dollar gym shoes were invented. And synchronized swimming will never make it to network prime time because how often do you need new nose plugs?
 --P.J. O'Rourke

[A.G._Crockett]

Here's why I ask Pat,

It's very feasible to play the last three holes at Pine Valley or Seminole with the same approach club but from a difference of 50 yards to the target.

#16 at Pine Valley could ask for an 8 iron from 175 yards with a full high blast down the hill and downwind while #17 could also be an 8 iron from 125 or 130 up the hill into the wind. The shot into 16 could just as easily be a comfortable 7 iron and the shot into 17 could be a hard 9 iron but because I choose the way I do, you have argued this is a knock against the golf course...

Now, if "tactical balance" means the play yardage of the approach shot then I'd agree to the extent that it's AN ingredient in the overall analysis but maybe not the only one as Jason Thurman suggested many posts ago.

Jim,
I'm not a fan of going from the instance to the generalization, as you have done here, but actually I think your example proves the opposite point from what you contend.

Your example of 8 irons from different distances depending on wind implies that the player might also use, instead of the 8 iron from 175 downwind, a long iron into the wind from the same distance. 

Asking the player to hit different clubs because the GCA took full advantage of elevation and wind sounds like a pretty good examination of the golfer's game to me, no?  Which is the real  point of the discussion...

[Dan King]

Patrick_Mucci writes:
With your limited set would you be willing to play in a scratch competition or for money against those who carry 14 clubs ?

I'm probably not the right person to ask since I'm not very competitive about golf. I don't play golf for money or goofy prizes. I play for myself.

You are a competitive guy. Would you ever be willing to have significantly fewer clubs than your opponent in a scratch competition or for money?

Like I said, the number 14 is arbitrary, yet you seem to want to make it important when designing courses. So lets say the USGA and R&A next month say the maximum number of clubs is 20. Would that mean all these formerly great courses that supplied a thorough examination suddenly stopped supplying this examination? What if the USGA said the maximum number of clubs is eight.  Would courses that in the past didn't supply this examination suddenly start because of a decision by the USGA?

Say there is no limit on the number of clubs the ruling bodies say a golfer can use. Would courses that give a golfer the desire to use the most clubs be the better designs?

As to 28 clubs, I'd never make it to the second tee.

If the limit was 20 manufacturers would have figured out a way to make clubs more lightweight. Anything to keep golfers buying more equipment.

Cheers,
Dan King

Sports gear purchases are about all that's keeping the fragile U.S. economy alive, and you'd have to get into America's Cup yachting or cross-country airplane racing to find a sport that needs more gear than golf.
 --P.J. O'Rourke

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan,
14 clubs isn't exactly "arbitrary"; it is the maximum number allowed in the Rules, and has been since 1939.  Not only do 99.99999% of all golfers carry 14 clubs, but the vast majority of golf courses have been built since that became the Rule, so there IS an interaction there, and there is no use to contend otherwise. 

An analogy would be 18 holes for a full round of golf.  You are welcome to play 13 holes and then tell people that you shot a 65, but that isn't the way the game is played.  The masses play 18 holes with 14 clubs.  You aren't part of the masses, and I applaud you for that.  But don't confuse not being part of the masses for the masses not existing.

But to answer your question, if the Rules were changed to allow 20 clubs that would NOT compromise existing courses and the examination that they do or do not provide.  The variety of shots called for is the thing, whether that is 12 out of 12 (assume driver and putter) or 12 out of 18.  It is still more variety than 8 of 12 or 8 of 20.  Doesn't change a thing.

[Dan King]

A.G._Crockett writes:
14 clubs isn't exactly "arbitrary"; it is the maximum number allowed in the Rules, and has been since 1939.

But most rounds are not played according to the USGA/R&A rules of golf.

Not only do 99.99999% of all golfers carry 14 clubs, but the vast majority of golf courses have been built since that became the Rule, so there IS an interaction there, and there is no use to contend otherwise.

Isn't your 99.999999% a bit of an exaggeration? I'm not a math whiz, but isn't that 1 in a million golfers carry some number other than 14? Or am I off my an order of magnitude? Even when I carried a bag full of clubs, rarely was it exactly 14.

Good analogy. It does give me something to think about.  My rebuttal would be yes the 18 is arbitrary, but it has become a standard for golfers regardless if they play by USGA rules or not. I don't believe the 14 clubs has become quite the standard you seem to think it is.

But to answer your question, if the Rules were changed to allow 20 clubs that would NOT compromise existing courses and the examination that they do or do not provide.  The variety of shots called for is the thing, whether that is 12 out of 12 (assume driver and putter) or 12 out of 18.  It is still more variety than 8 of 12 or 8 of 20.  Doesn't change a thing.

So isn't that saying the number of clubs used is unimportant, but rather the diversity of shots required is the critical criteria?

Let's forget me for a minute or two. Wasn't the example of Himself, who could hit a 235 yard hole at Bundoran with just about every club in his bag, make the idea of using a number of clubs as a test far too dependent on the golfer than on the architect?

Variety good.
Strict numbers bad.

Cheers,
Dan King

It is not a matter of life and death. It is not that important. But it is a reflection of life, and so the game is an enigma wrapped in a mystery impaled on a conundrum.
 --Peter Alliss

[Jason Thurman]

A.G., I get that. I just don't think there's all that much variety involved in simply hitting every club. Maybe I'm in the minority, but to me there's not that much difference between a full wedge and a full 7 iron. There's also not that much difference between a 5 iron and 3 iron. Now, if I only have to hit clubs PW-7iron on approaches, then I tend to think a course lacks variety. But within that spectrum, it doesn't really matter to me whether I hit all 4 clubs or just 2, as they're all short irons in my view.

What's more significant is if I have to hit different types of shots. I might be the only one left, but I work the ball a lot. If I can hit my stock 5 yard draw for an entire round, I feel completely comfortable even if I have to hit every club in the bag. My ballstriking isn't tested thoroughly until I get called to hit a different shape, or hit one high or low.

Going one step further, approaches from 135, 145, 155, and 165 are all stock shots for me. I'm making the same swing whether hitting the 7 iron 165 or the wedge 135. But when faced with a 160 yard shot, I have to manufacture a shot. I'm much more likely to mess up the choke-down 7 iron or slam 8 iron that I'm facing from that distance.

So yes, using more clubs is an indicator, but if a course is going to provide a thorough test it's more important that I get tested across different SPECTRUMS of clubs (balance between long and short irons) along with different shot demands for those shots. A course on which I hit 9i, 6i, and 3i of all different shapes and levels of "power" is a far better test of ballstriking than a course on which I simply hit PW, 9i, 8i, and 7i, even though I hit more clubs at the latter.

[JESII]

Here's why I ask Pat,

It's very feasible to play the last three holes at Pine Valley or Seminole with the same approach club but from a difference of 50 yards to the target.

#16 at Pine Valley could ask for an 8 iron from 175 yards with a full high blast down the hill and downwind while #17 could also be an 8 iron from 125 or 130 up the hill into the wind. The shot into 16 could just as easily be a comfortable 7 iron and the shot into 17 could be a hard 9 iron but because I choose the way I do, you have argued this is a knock against the golf course...

Now, if "tactical balance" means the play yardage of the approach shot then I'd agree to the extent that it's AN ingredient in the overall analysis but maybe not the only one as Jason Thurman suggested many posts ago.

Jim,
I'm not a fan of going from the instance to the generalization, as you have done here, but actually I think your example proves the opposite point from what you contend.

Your example of 8 irons from different distances depending on wind implies that the player might also use, instead of the 8 iron from 175 downwind, a long iron into the wind from the same distance. 

Asking the player to hit different clubs because the GCA took full advantage of elevation and wind sounds like a pretty good examination of the golfer's game to me, no?  Which is the real  point of the discussion...

AG,

What I was hoping to illustrate, due to my experiences, was using a single club for a variety of purposes/yardages/shot intentions. So yes, I agree, using elevation to assist in creating variety is a good thing.

I think the point everyone would agree with is that variety is King. Pat limited the analysis to actual club selection while Jason suggests the actual shot hit (curve, trajectory etc...). I think it's both plus probably a couple others.

[Ken Fry]

As I offered in my first post, if I only used 7 of my 14 clubs the last time I played Crystal Downs does that somehow diminish the quality of Mackenzie's work there??

Ken,

That's a hypothetical where you've predetermined the answer vis a vis the phrasing of the question.

Ask yourself this question.

Is it the architect's mission to construct a balanced challenge that favors no particular golfer's game ?

Yes or No ?

More questions to follow after your answer.

Ken

Pat,

You know as well as I do the architect's true mission is to build what the client is asking for, no?

I understand the point you're making, but your argument sounds too rigid.  You mention great old courses like Seminole, NGLA, Pine Valley as examples for your argument yet when all those courses were built, there was no "14 club rule" in the Rules of Golf.

In simple terms, I'd much rather hear a course described as "providing great opportunity for many shot options."  To me, a great course will embody this statement.  Whatever club you choose to hit a shot is another matter, but how you get the ball from point a to point b means everything.  If this is what you mean by "tactical balance," I'm with you.

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You know as well as I do the architect's true mission is to build what the client is asking for, no?

I'm not so sure.
If it was that easy, the client wouldn't need an architect.
Some Clients generally have a global sense of what they want and often communicate that to the architect, but it's the architect's mission to forge a disinterested balanced tactical challenge that doesn't favor a particular golfer's game

I understand the point you're making, but your argument sounds too rigid.  You mention great old courses like Seminole, NGLA, Pine Valley as examples for your argument yet when all those courses were built, there was no "14 club rule" in the Rules of Golf.

But, they've all been modified and lengthened subsequent to 1939 to meet the 14 club golfer's game.

In simple terms, I'd much rather hear a course described as "providing great opportunity for many shot options."  To me, a great course will embody this statement.  Whatever club you choose to hit a shot is another matter, but how you get the ball from point a to point b means everything.  If this is what you mean by "tactical balance," I'm with you.

I didn't limit course descriptions.
A tactical balance is just that.  A diverse challenge that encourages the golfer to prove their proficiency with the wide variety of clubs in their bag, and not merely a repetitious exercise with the same clubs.

Hope that helps

[Wade Whitehead]

I have a friend who was a very competitive amateur for many years.  He's played a number of great courses, including a couple in USGA national championships.

I once asked him for his favorite course.  #2, he said, because he hit every club in his bag in every round of the North & South one year.

I thought it was an interesting response.  For a top-tier player, playing well, to hit every club in consecutive rounds on a golf course must mean something.  Note that this was in the persimmon era.

WW

[David Harshbarger]

Pat,

I'm going with Ken and Dan on this at least as far as their points on good GCA gives players an opportunity to make choices on which clubs they play, and when and how they play them.  The players make the choice, not the course.  In competition, especially match play, choice of club played could be heavily skewed based on circumstance.

However, I'd side with you in general if the thesis was rephrased around inviting the opportunity to use every shot in the player's bag.

Also, and maybe your question considers this, but if the question can be answered in the affirmative by Golfers of different strengths and abilities, I'd more strongly agree.

For example, a hole played in a tight match that invites a longer player to play Driver/4i vs. 3w/7i/SW, and a shorter player Driver/3w vs. Driver/4i/SW, with the choice coming down to how the player with honors chooses and executes, seems like good architecture.  Whether either player plays the 4i or 3w in fact is irrelevant. 

Where the test fails is a dead straight course where the yardages insist on making those clubs in play. 10 par 4's could easily all of your full swing clubs with mechanical 10-15 yard variations in hole length.

Back to my main point...
If in playing a course you find your hand hovering over every club in consideration of an option, then I'd agree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm going with Ken and Dan on this at least as far as their points on good GCA gives players an opportunity to make choices on which clubs they play, and when and how they play them. 

David,

Choices with clubs is so overrated or exaggerated that it's almost a myth.

I hate to cite PGA Tour Pros, but, if you ever have the opportunity to be on a golf course with them, watch how they disect a golf course.
They tend to reduce play to percentage golf.  That may seem robotic and unromantic, but, those guys are good and they know how to score, and that is an object of the game.  (I know, Dan King will come up with his "objects" of the game, but, for the rest of us, score matters)

Faced with almost any shot into a green 150 yards away, there aren't many options for me, and I doubt for others.
It's an aerial game, first and foremost, and the golfer will use that club which he's most comfortable hitting 150 yards, through the air.
For me, that's a 7-iron.
I'm not going to hit a punched 4-iron, even though I'm fairly decent at it, and I'm not going to flail away at a 9-iron.
I'm going to hit the solid 7, day in and day out.
Is there variation, yes, I may hit a 6 to take fronting trouble out of play and I may hit an 8 to take rear trouble out of play,
But, my club selection is almost predisposed (assuming I've hit my usual/typical drive)

So, let's stop kidding ourselves about options when playing for real.

The players make the choice, not the course. 
In competition, especially match play, choice of club played could be heavily skewed based on circumstance.

Not true, the course almost always dictates choice, starting with yardage.
If you play the man and not the course I'd question your competitive record at match play.
I'm not saying that you ignore your opponents circumstance, just that you'd be poorly advised to decide your play based solely on their circumstance.
One should be aware of their opponents circumstance, but playing shots based solely on their circumstances is a dangerous method of play

However, I'd side with you in general if the thesis was rephrased around inviting the opportunity to use every shot in the player's bag.

Also, and maybe your question considers this, but if the question can be answered in the affirmative by Golfers of different strengths and abilities, I'd more strongly agree.

For example, a hole played in a tight match that invites a longer player to play Driver/4i vs. 3w/7i/SW, and a shorter player Driver/3w vs. Driver/4i/SW, with the choice coming down to how the player with honors chooses and executes, seems like good architecture.  Whether either player plays the 4i or 3w in fact is irrelevant. 

David,

You can't view the issue in the context of one hole, you have to consider all 18.

It's like Seminole.
One day I can play # 10 with Driver / L Wedge.
Another with Driver 7-iron.
Another with 2-iron, 8-iron.

but, while # 10 plays differently with different winds, so do all the other holes.

The genius of Seminole is that while the play of the individual holes is vastly different in varied winds, the overall tactical challenge remains the same.

One day you're hitting Driver 4-iron into # 16 and Drive wedge into # 18.
The next day you're hitting Driver - Wedge into # 16 and Driver - 3W into # 18.

So, again, you can't look at one hole, two holes, three holes, etc., etc.. You have to look at all 18.

Where the test fails is a dead straight course where the yardages insist on making those clubs in play. 10 par 4's could easily all of your full swing clubs with mechanical 10-15 yard variations in hole length.

Do you know of five (5) such courses ?

Back to my main point...
If in playing a course you find your hand hovering over every club in consideration of an option, then I'd agree.

After a round, if you used every club in your bag, wouldn't that inherently indicate that the architect forged an incredibly well balanced challenge, one that was so incredibly interesting that you used all of your clubs instead of just a few ?

[Ken Fry]

A tactical balance is just that.  A diverse challenge that encourages the golfer to prove their proficiency with the wide variety of clubs in their bag, and not merely a repetitious exercise with the same clubs.

Hope that helps

This I buy into.  A diverse challenge encouraging the golfer to utilize a wide range of shots.  As a side note, this is why I love playing firm and fast courses.  The shot selection process tends to work backward.  Pick where the ball should finish and plot back from there to the point of choosing the club to perform the task.  Not dart golf of point a to point b at exactly xxx yards.

I wonder if Picasso felt a painting was better because he used all the brushes available to him as opposed to only the ones needed to make a masterpiece?

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

A tactical balance is just that.  A diverse challenge that encourages the golfer to prove their proficiency with the wide variety of clubs in their bag, and not merely a repetitious exercise with the same clubs.

Hope that helps

This I buy into.  A diverse challenge encouraging the golfer to utilize a wide range of shots.  As a side note, this is why I love playing firm and fast courses.  The shot selection process tends to work backward.  Pick where the ball should finish and plot back from there to the point of choosing the club to perform the task.  Not dart golf of point a to point b at exactly xxx yards.

Ken, unfortunately, with the advent of TV, color TV, aerial and target golf have become the game today.

It seems like there's a movement back to F&F, perhaps accelerated by the cost or shortage of water.
But, on the courses I play in the Northeast, especially in the spring, there is no F&F due to Mother Nature.
It's rained here, hard, for two days and it's supposed to rain for the next five days.
How can you achieve F&F under those conditions.
Even if it stops raining, how long will it take to achieve F&F conditions ?  A month ?  The season ?
We all, or most of us really like F&F, but, F&F is hard to find and it's expensive to achieve.

I wonder if Picasso felt a painting was better because he used all the brushes available to him as opposed to only the ones needed to make a masterpiece?

I think there are an infinite number of brushes available to him, but, only 14 clubs in your bag.

Salvadore Dali may have been playing with a different set.

Ken

[Dan King]

Patrick_Mucci writes:
Faced with almost any shot into a green 150 yards away, there aren't many options for me, and I doubt for others.
It's an aerial game, first and foremost, and the golfer will use that club which he's most comfortable hitting 150 yards, through the air.

What a sad way to play golf.  Does it really matter that you are on a golf course? Couldn't you just as easily be at a simulator and get the same thrill?

I guess if your game is that dull, yes, then it is probably true that you can turn assessing a golf course into an equation. But for those that haven't turned the game into an automaton activity, a golf course is made of many different parts, not just numbers on a a scorecard.

Thankfully I never got that good at golf.

Cheers,
Dan King

The fact is, I've just discovered the secret of golf. You can't play a really hot game unless you're so miserable that you don't worry over your shots. Take the case of a chip shot, for instance. If you're really wretched, you don't care where the ball is going and so you don't raise your head to see. Grief automatically prevents pressing and over-swinging. Look at the topnotchers. Have you ever seen a happy pro?
 --Ferdinand Dibble

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick_Mucci writes:
Faced with almost any shot into a green 150 yards away, there aren't many options for me, and I doubt for others.
It's an aerial game, first and foremost, and the golfer will use that club which he's most comfortable hitting 150 yards, through the air.

What a sad way to play golf.  Does it really matter that you are on a golf course? Couldn't you just as easily be at a simulator and get the same thrill?
Dan,

If I'm playing a $ 100 nassau, like JakaB, do you really think I'm going to jerk around and hit an esoteric shot.

When I'm playing with my son, or some friends for fun, I'll try anything, and, even in a match play event I've been known to try wild shots, but, not in a medal play competition and not when there's money on the line, mine and my partners.

You've previously indicated that you don't keep score, so consequences have no meaning for you.

When trying to qualify for an event, I"m not going to experiment and blow the round right there, on one shot.
One shot never makes you qualify, but one shot can make sure that you don't qualify.

Experimenting is a situational luxury.

I guess if your game is that dull, yes, then it is probably true that you can turn assessing a golf course into an equation.
But for those that haven't turned the game into an automaton activity, a golf course is made of many different parts, not just numbers on a a scorecard.

Depends upon whether you're out walking your dog or trying to qualify for a State or USGA event.
Or, if you're playing for money, with or without partners.
You have a casual, non-competitive perspective.
That's great, but, you don't compete.
If you did, you'd modify your perspective or file for bankruptcy

Thankfully I never got that good at golf.

Maybe, just maybe it's because you don't keep score and don't have any great concern about the consequences of the shots you execute ?

When my life was hanging in the balance with cancer, I had that attitude, but, as my health improved, those damn 3 footers began to mean something again.

[Ken Fry]

A tactical balance is just that.  A diverse challenge that encourages the golfer to prove their proficiency with the wide variety of clubs in their bag, and not merely a repetitious exercise with the same clubs.

Hope that helps

This I buy into.  A diverse challenge encouraging the golfer to utilize a wide range of shots.  As a side note, this is why I love playing firm and fast courses.  The shot selection process tends to work backward.  Pick where the ball should finish and plot back from there to the point of choosing the club to perform the task.  Not dart golf of point a to point b at exactly xxx yards.

Ken, unfortunately, with the advent of TV, color TV, aerial and target golf have become the game today.

It seems like there's a movement back to F&F, perhaps accelerated by the cost or shortage of water.
But, on the courses I play in the Northeast, especially in the spring, there is no F&F due to Mother Nature.
It's rained here, hard, for two days and it's supposed to rain for the next five days.
How can you achieve F&F under those conditions.
Even if it stops raining, how long will it take to achieve F&F conditions ?  A month ?  The season ?
We all, or most of us really like F&F, but, F&F is hard to find and it's expensive to achieve.

I wonder if Picasso felt a painting was better because he used all the brushes available to him as opposed to only the ones needed to make a masterpiece?

I think there are an infinite number of brushes available to him, but, only 14 clubs in your bag.

Salvadore Dali may have been playing with a different set.

Ken

You're correct about proper firm and fast.  Where we both live Mother Nature dictates conditions more often than not.

As you and others from this sight that have played with me over the years can attest, my game tends to look much more like Jackson Pollock than Picasso anyway!

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken,

I don't want to divert the thread, but, when I played the Outlaw Course at Desert Mountain, it was fast and firm.

It was a real treat, fun to play with great variety in the architecture and shots at hand.

I inquired about the popularity of the six courses at Desert Mountain and was told that Outlaw was NOT favored because they didn't overseed, which was the reason I loved it.

Now, I'm told, they intend to overseed, either next year or the year after.

What a shame.

If you have the chance to play there, do it before they overseed, you'll love it.