[Paul Gray]

Paul

To fail to make any link between RTJ, target golf and the negative effects therein would however be a mistake. Try fours hours of boredom on a Dave Thomas course and then try to pursued me the ghost of RTJ didn't have a hand in it.

What would really be a mistake would be broadly shitcanning a person's body of work on the basis of having played just one of their courses.

You may well be right, but on the basis of one course played, you have no right to make that assertion.

It's not like there's a shortage of RTJ courses out there for you to play and test your assumption...

Scott,

It's a fair point and maybe I should have been more general instead of picking out RTJ. Trent Jones was singled out simply as a victim of his own success. I could have referred more broadly to the school of design embraced after WWII.

Nonetheless, we are hardly talking about someone who's work isn't much publicised. If we were talking about a lesser known architect I'd agree with you entirely.

And to be clear, at no point did I shitcan anyone's entire body of work. I made reference to some courses.

[Craig Sweet]

I don't care if the course is 6000 yds, or 8000 yds...surrounded by houses or surrounded by woods...the game...the actual striking of the ball... is very difficult and that makes golf something other than a casual, occasionally played, game for a lot of people.  Those that do stick with it play so damn slow that it takes all the enjoyment out of the game for a lot of people.  When you add in the cost of equipment, and the cost for a round, you begin to narrow down the number of participants even further.

I can buy a decent tennis racket for under $100 and play for free in every community in America...and I don't have some A-Hole stepping up to the ball...backing off...visualizing...taking three practice swings...stepping up to the ball yet again...waggling.....etc...etc.

[jeffwarne]

I can buy a decent tennis racket for under $100 and play for free in every community in America...and I don't have some A-Hole stepping up to the ball...backing off...visualizing...taking three practice swings...stepping up to the ball yet again...waggling.....etc...etc.

So this past March I return home to Augusta, and go to a local community tennis court and play with my wife and son.
We happen to notice a frisbee golf course, and my son really wants to play.

We go to the store to buy a frisbee and we're told we need a "set" of frisbees each to properly play the courses.
We buy a set, but we notice it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference and we each choose a frisbee and  we set off on the course-
we notice another group on the other side of the park where the "back nine" is located.
The course takes up a lot of real estate and holes are 50-300 yards long.
We buzz through the front, enjoying the walk and the competition, and notice we're approaching a group who's now about on 14, we play 5 holes and catch them on 15.

There it is, visuallizing, three practice swings, backoff etc.  
Each player, each time-and of course they suck to boot-and no one starts their ridiculous routine until the others have completed their ridiculous routine.
It took us longer to play the last 4 holes than the previous 14(we went back and replayed 5-6 other holes just to keep moving),
 and the players, who of course each had their own complete sets complete with bag, were no better than any of the three of us .
Didn't notice any rangefinders...........but after  four holes behind them I was ready for a cart loaded with a lot of beer

[Carl Johnson]

How about golf finding its way by returning to its roots -- the match play game.  Forget about "shooting a score."  Outside of serious by-the-rules tournaments, the "scores shot" by recreational players are meaningless anyway, what with conceded putts, do-overs, bad drops, mulligans, and so on.  Play matches.  You're out of a whole, pick up and move on.  Use handicaps when appropriate, to keep it competitive and fun.  Learn how to return "scores" for handicap purposes, which, of course, are not actual medal scores, though many like to pretend they are.

The obstacle I see, and which I am not sure can be overcome, is that televised games and the broadcasters are all about shooting scores.  And the Golf Channels "lessons" are all about form - not the substance of actually playing the game.

[Brent Hutto]

A wise and well-traveled club pro once told me that in his experience when you ask a typical golfer what they think of a golf course, the answer will be along the lines of "The greens were a little bumpy. I shot an 87". For most golfers the score isn't the most important thing, it is the only thing.

I honestly can not see that changing on any large scale any time soon. Between televised golf and the ubiquitous handicap computer score is just not going to become anything less than an essential way of viewing the game. Maybe I'd be more sanguine about match-play's play in the game if I had ever, in nearly 20 years playing golf constantly, found myself in a regular group of player who focused on their matches to the exclusion of their "scores". At most the match has been given slightly higher weight than an individual's stroke-play score and even that has been rare in my perhaps limited experience.

[Carl Johnson]

A wise and well-traveled club pro once told me that in his experience when you ask a typical golfer what they think of a golf course, the answer will be along the lines of "The greens were a little bumpy. I shot an 87". For most golfers the score isn't the most important thing, it is the only thing.

I honestly can not see that changing on any large scale any time soon. Between televised golf and the ubiquitous handicap computer score is just not going to become anything less than an essential way of viewing the game. Maybe I'd be more sanguine about match-play's play in the game if I had ever, in nearly 20 years playing golf constantly, found myself in a regular group of player who focused on their matches to the exclusion of their "scores". At most the match has been given slightly higher weight than an individual's stroke-play score and even that has been rare in my perhaps limited experience.

You're probably right to be pessimistic.  Still, also probably just a voice in the wilderness, I like to see the USGA, TV guys, clubs, etc., try to push folks in that direction.  Personally, I only play match play, if I'm not just touring a course, and do play with a fairly good size group of people who do focus on the match play results.  Many, but not all by any means, will note the medal score they are going to post - not a real medal score - and be happy or not about that.  Still, the emphasis is on the match and the huge amounts of money at stake  , with plenty of picking up and going on when we (they) are out of a hole.  It does keep things moving.

[Brent Hutto]

The compromise that seems very common hereabouts is playing "points" games. Somewhat like Stableford games but with gross points accumulated for the team and then total handicap strokes added to the team total.

This has the advantage or disadvantage, depending on ones point of view, of offering the best of both worlds. To a good approximation ones "points" earned for the team have a one-to-one mapping with ones "score". The latter being in quotes because everyone picks up after failing to make a one-point (gross) bogey. So no inconvenient big numbers but you instantly know what "score" to type into the computer afterwards.

These games seem ubiquitous at the local clubs and courses I'm aware of, albeit with slight modifications to taste.

For a while I played with a group who did rotating-partners better ball type matches. Unhandicapped as the handicaps were pretty similar and it was assumed the rotation of partners throughout the round evened things out. The good side of that is we moved quickly because nobody putted out once a hole was decided (unless maybe it was a birdie putt). The bad side is the guys in that game had no conceivable prayer of competing in a club stroke-play event because most of their rounds had multiple pick-up holes that were recorded as pars or bogeys when the player was more likely to have scored double if he finished. But none of those guys played much outside of the group so maintaining a "handicap" was mostly out of habit, I suspect.

[Carl Johnson]

The compromise that seems very common hereabouts is playing "points" games. Somewhat like Stableford games but with gross points accumulated for the team and then total handicap strokes added to the team total. . . .

Brent, you make a good point.  There are, without a doubt, plenty of games that can be played where actual, individual medal scores don't come into play, which helps speed things along.  I play with a regular group of seniors one day a week and where we play 3- or 4-man teams, counting one or two best balls, net, for the group.  Players out of the scoring on a hole normally pick up.  The games move quickly, with a mix of walkers and riders, but not so rushed that you cannot enjoy the play.  Now, if we could figure out how to promote more of this . . . .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()