Been wondering:

[V. Kmetz]

Why the idea of medal scoring (at the elite championship level) didn't go the way of something like...the "4-Minute Mile?"

and instead of tearing up, renovating, lengthening and re-hazarding the courses upon which the early golfers competed, why did Golf adopt the ethos that doesn't permit the best scores to just go lower and lower...

62....61...60....59....58....57....56....someday....18?

I know that 99.9% of the Golf played by all of us is contested at match play (unlike most of elite competition) but it is seeming stranger and stranger to me that we have resisted, or reacted with resistance, the notion that an elite player armed with hot pelotos, filed down wedges and micro-balanced kick points shouldn't be in the 50s more often, so talented are they.

cheers

vk

[Tim_Weiman]

Where did you get the idea that 99.9% of the golf is played as match play?

As opposed to Europe, very little golf is played as match play in the United States.

Anyway, if the match play format could somehow eliminate modifying golf courses just to adapt to technology changes, I'd be all for it.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Interesting thought.   

If Rory (or whoever) posts a 57 will the floodgates Open they way the did after Roger Bannister finally broke the mile? Is breaking 60 considered a wall? And if the floodgates opened would that really change things?

[Mark Chaplin]

Because top level golf would be even more of a putting contest and that would be boring to view.

[Matthew Essig]

Interesting thought.  

If Rory (or whoever) posts a 57 will the floodgates Open they way the did after Roger Bannister finally broke the mile? Is breaking 60 considered a wall? And if the floodgates opened would that really change things?

Or writing a slightly different way: If someone shoots a 59 at St. Andrews in 2015, would it open the floodgates? (couple of 62's in 2012)

[Jon Wiggett]

It would be better IMHO if the pros did away with par and their scores were gauged compared to level 4s. They should also do away with distances, yardage and distance aids as well. Make em eyeball it 

Jon

[V. Kmetz]

JW - Yes, the imposition of Par makes a lot of things stink...hence, Irwin's 287 at WF is called +7, but it's really -1 (under fours) and Oglive's 285 really -3, not +5

MC - to some extent, it's always been that way, no?  At some point, every great round gets down to the action near the target.  And even if that is noticed in greater proportion, should Golf concede to what is more watchable?

TW- I wasn't trying to create a new fact, just trying to acknowledge that most of the Golf I've seen or participated in is conducted as a match.  I've rarely experienced Golfers making their game..."Whomever shoots lowest for the whole round...80, 70, 60... wins."  And the whole idea of handicap, and order of handicap holes is more for match scoring than medal.

cheers

vk

[Patrick_Mucci]

Because it wouldn't represent a thorough examination of the golfer's game.

The best golfers in the world should be tested, and that means placing a demand on all aspects of their game/s

It's difficult to  test long irons and fairway woods without lengthening courses

[Niall C]

It would be better IMHO if the pros did away with par and their scores were gauged compared to level 4s. They should also do away with distances, yardage and distance aids as well. Make em eyeball it 

Jon

Absolutely, and make the buggers carry their own clubs as well. That might make them think twice about taking a club for every occasion and make them think more about improvisiation. Also let them decide themselves how to play a shot rather than reliance on some guy with a yardage book. I know it will never happen but you can always dream.

VK - nice thread.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Because it wouldn't represent a thorough examination of the golfer's game.

The best golfers in the world should be tested, and that means placing a demand on all aspects of their game/s

It's difficult to  test long irons and fairway woods without lengthening courses

Patrick:

I agree with your first sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion.  You can test long irons and fairway woods on one-shot holes or on par fives.  If you used one-shot holes, maybe we'd have to change the rule about using a tee peg, but that wouldn't be that big a change.

Indeed, though no one seems to want to go there, a more demanding course for the pros might be a course with MORE (and longer) par-3's.

[Mac Plumart]

Because it wouldn't represent a thorough examination of the golfer's game.

The best golfers in the world should be tested, and that means placing a demand on all aspects of their game/s

It's difficult to  test long irons and fairway woods without lengthening courses

Patrick:

I agree with your first sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion.  You can test long irons and fairway woods on one-shot holes or on par fives.  If you used one-shot holes, maybe we'd have to change the rule about using a tee peg, but that wouldn't be that big a change.

Indeed, though no one seems to want to go there, a more demanding course for the pros might be a course with MORE (and longer) par-3's.

I support going there.  Let's break the paradigm and create something unique and interesting. 

[Mike_Young]

I think the main reason is TV.  You end up with four guys playing on a Saturday and two on a Sunday.  Sponsors of players and TV ad space would be pissed...BUT do agree matchplay is the saviour of golf in America.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Because it wouldn't represent a thorough examination of the golfer's game.

The best golfers in the world should be tested, and that means placing a demand on all aspects of their game/s

It's difficult to  test long irons and fairway woods without lengthening courses

Patrick:

I agree with your first sentiment, but disagree with your conclusion.  You can test long irons and fairway woods on one-shot holes or on par fives.  If you used one-shot holes, maybe we'd have to change the rule about using a tee peg, but that wouldn't be that big a change.

Indeed, though no one seems to want to go there, a more demanding course for the pros might be a course with MORE (and longer) par-3's.

I've often thought that was the Colt etc reasoning behind heathland course layouts like Swinley. Overall they have a short yardage but play tough with long Par 3's, some long Par 4's and minimal Par 5's.  Back to the future?

[V. Kmetz]

TD and all,

For both the handicap golfer and the elite player, it seems to me that the 390-440 yard hole is currently as dead and lifeless as a stone...It's often too much for the former group and a rather "feh" test (along the lines of PM's remark) for the elite player.  Of course there are very fine ones, but more often than not in my observation they tend to the heroic or penal and do not invite a decision or manner of play, they invite a straight ball clubbed to the first third of the green. This is why they do not challenge the elite players and often defy the 10 HCPs

On the elite front, more and more it seems to me that our classic short fours (too many to fully list - but I'm thinking riviera 10, ANGC 3 Oakmont 17, WFW 6, PB 4, TOC - 9,10,12 and 18, NGLA 2 [least discussed hole on that fine course]) are the kinds of holes that make for an exacting test (because 3 is so attainable?) plus a great watch. I love observing the brute force and finesse strategies in play when the field comes to a hole such as these.  One recent example was on Olympic #7, which was pivotal each day of the tournament. 

And reverting back to my own 9-12HCP, my god does a course populated with such beauties and their kin make for a good time for me.  (TD, do you remember or have had a chance to re-visit my "secret" favorite that we discussed?...it is such a course, everything solvable, Diet-Raynor, never a sour round)

Short "4s" and Long "3s," followed closely by "4.5s" (card em' as you will) seem to be the best types of holes to use in greater combination, whether we're talking about our own game or the finest at exhibition.

And though I can't help but agree with the truth of what PM says, I feel like the answer permits further question.  If the people of Golf have indeed voted with their feet to keep a standard of "challenge" in the big competitions, at the expense of maintaining a standard of "continuing towards perfection with lower scores" then is there no room/interest to build a second style of competition, a shadow competition that seeks not to challenge by "restrictor plates" but with the mandate "how fast can you go?"

But in the end, it's just a rumination, borne by me thinking "I'd love to see what an elite player with two practice rounds, would do at Winged Foot at 6750 today...the rough is low, the wind is just right, the greens are 10.5 and true...go get em' boys!" I can't speak for Oakmont or Southern hills or Olympic or many of the great USGA/PGA/RnA courses, but to me its a depreciation of classic GCA to have WFW embedded in Golf culture as "mean" "brutal" "testing" because played at a sensible tee and average conditions, the course is really "fun" an makes for great sport.  I resist the conglomeration of what the architecture IS, and what lessons it offers, by the forces of engineered competition.

cheers

vk



 

[JESII]

The obvious answer is, because they can. The ability of a course to change from day to day is a great part of its allure. Making a course more difficult is just a small aspect of that quality.

You can't make the mile longer.

[Kyle Harris]

Interesting thought.   

If Rory (or whoever) posts a 57 will the floodgates Open they way the did after Roger Bannister finally broke the mile? Is breaking 60 considered a wall? And if the floodgates opened would that really change things?

Or writing a slightly different way: If someone shoots a 59 at St. Andrews in 2015, would it open the floodgates? (couple of 62's in 2010)

Nobody shot 62 on 2010 as the winner shot 272..

[Matthew Essig]

Interesting thought.   

If Rory (or whoever) posts a 57 will the floodgates Open they way the did after Roger Bannister finally broke the mile? Is breaking 60 considered a wall? And if the floodgates opened would that really change things?

Or writing a slightly different way: If someone shoots a 59 at St. Andrews in 2015, would it open the floodgates? (couple of 62's in 2010)

Nobody shot 62 on 2010 as the winner shot 272..

I meant a couple of 62's were shot this year by Victor Dubuisson and George Coetzee, although Rory shot a 63 in the Open in 2010.

[Adam Clayman]

To answer V's orig posit...Ego is what wont allow lower par values.

Make any hole under 340yds a par 3, for the pros, and viola. You'll have holes comparable to Ross' 240 yarders from the GA.

[Kyle Harris]

Interesting thought.   

If Rory (or whoever) posts a 57 will the floodgates Open they way the did after Roger Bannister finally broke the mile? Is breaking 60 considered a wall? And if the floodgates opened would that really change things?

Or writing a slightly different way: If someone shoots a 59 at St. Andrews in 2015, would it open the floodgates? (couple of 62's in 2010)

Nobody shot 62 on 2010 as the winner shot 272..

I meant a couple of 62's were shot this year by Victor Dubuisson and George Coetzee, although Rory shot a 63 in the Open in 2010.

For 18 of the 72 holes contested Rory took 63 shots. For another of those 18 he took 80. Its a four round tournament for a reason.

I can't exactly understand the premise of this post. No single round of golf exists in a vacuum.

If par is what an expert should be expected to make on a hole, shouldn't we first define expertise? I think an expert should be expected to take.no more than two shots to hole out from 150 yards, for starters.

[Adam Clayman]

Because it wouldn't represent a thorough examination of the golfer's game.

Medal play doesn't thoroughly examine.

 Aren't there aspects of match play, absent from medal competition? And vice versa?

[Jud_T]

Apparently Walter Hagen was a slouch who would be an afterthought in today's Medal Play mania.  How much of the blame goes to club memberships who want to keep up with the Joneses and have their course bee seen as a tough tournament test?  How often has the USGA actually told clubs to add length or is it primarily the clubs who added length in the hopes of impressing the USGA?

[Garland Bayley]

Because it wouldn't represent a thorough examination of the golfer's game.

The best golfers in the world should be tested, and that means placing a demand on all aspects of their game/s

It's difficult to  test long irons and fairway woods without lengthening courses

That's just wrong. You could test long irons and fairway woods by shortening courses.
You could test long irons and fairway woods by letting the grass grow a little.
You could test long irons and fairway woods by turning on the sprinklers.
The trouble with you Patrick is that you are so inside the box that it is a wonder that you don't develop a severe case of claustrophobia.

[Ronald Montesano]

Sullivan's point is excellent...you can't make the mile longer. If it is too wind-aided, the time does not count. If it is too wind-restricted...

I would say that golf medal scores did go something like the way of the 4-minute mile. The 4-minute mile was a notion that was broken in 1954, nearly 60 years ago. Was 59 the standard of disbelief in golf back then? I can't speak from experience, as I was nine years away from being born.

This thread has transmogrified into a series of sub-threads. I like the post from Mark Chapin about avoiding the descent into a putting contest. I despise going to PGATour.com for a review of the day's "Top Shots," only to find that a vast majority are putts for eagle, not the approach or the drive that helped get the golfer there.

Don't we herald, or didn't we, that 66 at Sunningdale of Jones as the perfect round? Doesn't that round exist in a vacuum? I recall the same being written about David Graham's 67 at Merion in 1981.

AClay writes "medal play doesn't thoroughly examine." Thoroughly examine what, my good man?

He also writes that "ego is what won't allow lower par values." This is broader than ego; it involves all of golf, especially as viewed by outside forces. For example, if track and field could somehow lower its distances, yet insist that records would replace those at longer distances, we on the outside would question the validity. The tech era of golf cannot be completely compared as parallel to the steroid eras of baseball and cycling, because the barometer has continued to change, in terms of golf course yardage.

I agree that, if golf courses for televised tournament events adapted par to 68 or 66, while maintaining the yardage, folks on the outside would wonder what is up. Remember that while Roger Maris took more at-bats and games to break Babe Ruth's home run record, Maris did so against a wider variety of skilled players than did Ruth (end of segregation.) Were other variable different? Doubtless they were. Yet most people focus on the number of games and number of at-bats.

Remember, too, that these breaks occur at all levels of track, from the 100 to the marathon. And, more people cluster around the new-old record once it is broken. It seems that a psychological burden is lifted once one human accomplishes the unattainable.

[Kyle Harris]

How is a format which allows, by rule, a player to remove himself from the competition for one hole at the mere cost of 1/18th the opportunity for victory a more thorough examination?

Guess what, in medal play one MUST continue playing. There can be nothing more thorough than that.

[Adam Clayman]

AClay writes "medal play doesn't thoroughly examine." Thoroughly examine what, my good man?

Stan, It was a response to Patrick's comment which I placed in a quote box. The golfer's game.

Kyle, There are aspects to match play that are not inherent in medal. The most glaring of which can only be described as an inner examination of one's character. A fortitude that feeds off competition, mano y. mano.

Medal play has resulted in nothing more than a robotic repetition of swing mechanics. The card and pencil mindset, which has emerged as a byproduct of medal play's dominance, has also led to the disfiguring of greens. While "these guys" are suppose to be good, they still don't want the challenge of a 3-4% slope on a putting green. It's likely led to a lack of creative imagination, oft required to deal with anything that hasn't become homogenized. i.e. character inherent in a "quirky" design.