[Brent Hutto]

So how far does the typical GCA'er play toward one end or the other of the continuum between what I'll call "smart golf" and what you might call "gonzo golf". For "smart golf" think you might think of an extreme version of the type of play engendered by medal-play competition on a tough course. For the "gonzo golf" end imagine playing 4BBB match-play on a course with numerous do-or-die opportunities.

The past year or so I've totally thrown any pretense of "smart" out the window which eventually degenerated into not even keeping score or playing by the Rules sufficiently to allow a valid handicap. Just try any shot that comes to mind and if the result is a lost ball or total flub, well drop another ball and try a different shot. Or pick up. Whatever. Eventually I overshot "gonzo golf" and arrived (for some rounds anyway) at something that was all "gonzo" and no "golf" at all.

So I'm readjusting my outlook and tacking my way back upwind to something identifyable as actual rounds of golf the way they draw it up in the rulebook. But I know I'm not interested in coming anywhere near the extremes of "smart golf" which, for a double-digit handicapper, leads to a stultifying plod around the course. Ignoring the idea of birdies and often not even thinking of pars in an effort to eliminate every possible double or triple bogey from my golfing life is not a game. That's a bad golfer trying (and failing) to ape his betters by striving for an error free round every time he tees it up.

Let's call a risk-taking, go-for-broke match play style as a "2" and a club-championship medal-play mindset as an "8" on a scale from 1 (Gonzo-est) to 10 (Smartest). I'd say I've been approaching about -1 or -1.5 on that scale recently and I'm shooting to recalibrate somewhere in the 3-to-4 range these next few months. Partly for my own sanity and partly so I can keep a real handicap and play in the odd dogfight or whatever at my club.

What's your number? More specifically, what number do you strive for and what number do you think you typically achieve (if they're not the same number)?

[Brad Tufts]

Interesting subject.  Also known as "The Beardpuller Scale".  On one extreme end are those who might think an architectural feature is so cool that they may as well just admire and stare and never even hit a ball (or play into the hazards just to check them out).  On the other extreme end would be one who looks upon golf courses as a means to an end, be that 95, 85, 75, or 65.

I think my GCA brain likes to think of itself as a 4 or 5, but I am much more towards a 7.

As a (still-holding-onto-for-dear-life-status-as-a) tournament player, I might enjoy architectural features as much as a 2 or 3 on the scale, but I am ultimately looking at a hole from a scoring perspective.

[JESII]

It is a cool subject Brent, thanks.

I'll engage more fully later but in the meantime, can you tell me where you think Toger Woods and Phil Mickelson would fall on your scale?

Thanks.

[Paul Gray]

Interesting thread.

As a man in his thirties that still plays golf with handicap aims in mind, until fairly recently I retained aspirations of at least trying, and failing, to be a 10.

However, for round after round I found that the supposedly smart approach was, for me personally, not so very smart. I just can't get my game head on without being a little aggressive/stupid and have concluded my natural game sits around about the 6 or 7 mark.

[RJ_Daley]

Brent, some cliche's or old saws come to mind.

"A man just gots to know his limitations"

and,

"Find yer gaeme"

For me, as another old aging crumudgeon who simply can't believe he hasn't gotten noticably better at the game and still isn't a single digit handicapper after all these year of pursuit of the ideal of 'smart golf' and 'within myself' swing; i waiver to between the extremes.  I go out alone sometimes and just try shots that challenge a feature of architecture and when I miss the goal, drop another ball and try it again.  Score really doesn't matter as much as being able to have that 'ah ha' moment of conquering that special architectural feature that juices up our GCA imaginations.     Sometimes, with good friends, we don't even keep score, and have a lark.  Sometimes with same golf pals, we'll play a decent game, bets on the line, and try to beat each other out of those damn quarters and halves, and play honorably and as close to the rules as we can, within friendly bounds.  Then, there are those times you are playing a club match play against the biggest stuff in your men's club in the summer series, and you play as close to the smart 10 as you can possibly achieve, and nothing is more satisfying as playing the real game and  succeeding against "THAT" guy.  

Over all, I'm about a 5.  

[Brent Hutto]

It is a cool subject Brent, thanks.

I'll engage more fully later but in the meantime, can you tell me where you think Toger Woods and Phil Mickelson would fall on your scale?

Thanks.

I think compared to the styles a weekend golfer can get by with, anyone playing on Tour has to be crowded onto the "Smart Golf" end of the continuum. So maybe 8.5 for Lefty and 9.5 for Tiger or something like that?

Probably the guys like Furyk or Zach Johnson are slammed right up against 9.99 on my scale where they might hit one un-smart shot per tournament. It would take a John Daly type to really get down into the 6's and 7's, if that.

Let's nail down "6" as a set point and call it "Seve", just for a point of reference.

[EDIT] Changed the value named "Seve" from 5 to 6, had it on the wrong side of the middle. Even Seve was still playing in stroke-play Tour events. Hmm, come to think of it maybe 6 is Seve playing in an Open and 5 is Seve paired with Olazabal in a Ryder Cup.

[RJ_Daley]

Brent, I never have had the status to be in a 'clambake' or invited to a Pro-Am affair to play a semi-goof-off round with a real player.  What would even be better;  yet I have never been a member or at a club to be invited to play a goof-off round with a real pro icon player (if such a round beyond a John Daly barefoot and drunk exists) with those guys.  But, wouldn't you just love to play one of those 2 or 3s with an iconic and revered player- just buddy golf, maybe the great one helps or demonstrates how you are doing it wrong along the way of the holes you cover.  Sort of an instant lesson, and a laugh when you drain one that he couldn't make, or actually score a par to his bogey? (it's golf and could happen!) 

I'll bet that Phil the thrill or Tiger, whoever, go out and have their versions of 2s and 3s during slow down periods, when the game for a living is off the table, and just need to go out and enjoy a round with a old pal or swing the club a bit in a month or two off period.  I just can't believe it is a 9-10 affair every time they tee it up when the are off the meter.

[Peter Pallotta]

Brent - Although I tend to keep score, I'm not a very good golfer and I rarely play competitively (save for a little match play once in a while). And yet I think I'm a 7-8 on your scale, because I've found over the years that I actually get more fun, not less, playing smart golf; it keeps me more engaged than the happy-go-lucky approach of bombing away and firing at pins -- partly because I'm not much good at either, and I always know that the rare success (a distant hazard cleared, an approach that sticks) is just that, rare, and thus feels much like finding a $20 dollar bill on the street, i.e. a pleasant bit of pure luck.  Maybe if I was a better golfer, I'd slide down to 4-5 on your scale, because if I were a better golfer the odds of my making the great shot would be higher, and so playing gonzo golf would feel more like gambling than like finding a needle in a haystack.

Peter

[Josh Tarble]

Interesting you think Seve might be a 5 or 6...I was thinking the hardest type of golfer to play against would be a 5 on your scale.  Never know if they are going to play the heroic shot or lay up.  Similar to a poker player that has no definitive style.

For me, I would say I'm far closer to 1 than 10, maybe about a 3.  There are times that I really would like to play safer but I always go back to the old adage "No one has started a great story by saying: reminder the time I laid up"

 

[Jeb Bearer]

For me, it depends on the situation. When I'm playing competitive golf, I lean towards the safe side of the scale, as all I care about is posting a good score. It depends a bit on the course, but more often than not that means avoiding the big numbers. In a casual round I'm much, much more likely to go for a heroic shot and experiment more. As a GCA fan I want to say I enjoy the latter more, and all else being equal I think that's true. That said, there's nothing quite like the thrill of competitive golf, at any level.

An interesting corollary is where on the scale does the average golfer (neither professional nor GCAer) fall, and how does that factor in to architect's decisions?

[Joe_Tucholski]

I think of myself as a "Gonzo Golfer."  The first time I played with someone from GCA they commented how I was either making a birdie/eagle or out of the hole.

I started keeping a handicap at the start of the month and this large varience in scoring on a particular hole also translates to a large variance in my posted scores (ranging from 77 to 91 last month - both scores also happened to be on the same course).

Unfortunately for the Gonzo golfer this sort of play puts us at a disadvantage in a match with the smart player because the USGA handicap system does not account for variance (going back to the first time playing with someone from GCA - we lost our match despite winning something like the first 3 or 4 holes).

[Sean_A]

I reckon I am somewhere in the middle.  I am not good enough for Gonzo or smart golf so whats left but the middle?  I will try to find almost any excuse not to lay-up if I have any chance at all of pulling off a shot.  On the other hand, I rarely go flag hunting.  I like to die my putts at the hole.  Does this add up to a 5?

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()