Hasn't the emphasis on medal play dramatically altered architecture

[Blake Conant]

Pat,


Tell me where you think the water is going if not into the bunker? 

[Rob Marshall]

Everyone of them is supposed to post their score for handicap purposes, ergo, medal play.

They most certainly are not. As the game flatlines, it would behoove you to keep in mind and perhaps even celebrate the approximately twenty million golfers in this country who just want to get out there and have some fun without this extra layer of cost and bureaucracy.

They certainly are if they want to maintain a handicap. If they don't want a handicap then no problem but you are going to be very limited in playing in any type of organized event.

Rob:  you and Pat really need a refresher course on handicapping.  You do not have to play medal play to post a round for USGA handicapping purposes.  I suspect you both know this but are conveniently forgetting this stone cold absolute fact.   Thus, the notion that just because you post a score, you played that round at medal play is absolutely positively 100% false. 

You and Pat seem to be confusing medal play and handicapping as if they are one and the same thing.  That is not true on multiple levels.  It's the exact same mistake in logic that the mopes who purport to speak for "the game" make when they blather about the business of golf or the Tour, as if those are synonymous with the game.  They aren't.  And neither are medal play and handicap posting.

David,
I understand completely. I know how it works and didn't conveniently leave  anything out. In match play if you don't finish a hole you post your most likely score. It still comes to a numerical number which in my mind is a medal score. You also have to post a score if you if get rained out on 14. Most of my rounds with my buddies are medal with match play side action.


If you close your match out on 15 I'm sure you just walk in right?

[Tom_Doak]

To the opening post:


It only alters architecture to the extent that the architect lets it.

[MClutterbuck]

Is it true that most architects today like to open with a relatively easy 1st hole?


Was this always true?

[AJ_Foote]

M


I wouldn't have thought so - Old Tom's original opener at Prestwick was a 578 yard par 5 (or perhaps a par 6 if 'par' had been invented).


Andrew

[William_G]

To the opening post:


It only alters architecture to the extent that the architect lets it.

yet, architecture isn't  always in the hands of an architect, and that is more the question

[Mark Pearce]

Mark is it a rolling 12 months or Jan-Jan? I've the usual two winter events over the next 3 weeks giving me 3 cards for 2015. Or will I need a supplementary card or two PDQ?

3 cards per calendar year, I'm afraid!

[MClutterbuck]

M


I wouldn't have thought so - Old Tom's original opener at Prestwick was a 578 yard par 5 (or perhaps a par 6 if 'par' had been invented).


Andrew

[/size]
[/size][size=78%]A greater percentage of relatively easy opening holes, if that indeed is the case, might be a first effect of more medal play.[/size]

[Patrick_Mucci]

To the opening post:


It only alters architecture to the extent that the architect lets it.


Tom,

I would disagree.

The architect does not have unrestricted architectural license, he has several constraints, some contractual others implied.

You, as an eminent architect have several influences or constraints that impact your designs.

First is the objective or mission statement of the developer.
Second is the ability or difficulty to maintain what you design.
Third is what the "golfer" will find palatable or repugnant.

I would almost guarantee that you exercised restraint in designing some of your courses because you felt that your creation would encounter a form of resistance and/or criticism.

I would also almost guarantee that if you had a free hand and were also the developer that your end product might be considered more radical than your previous designs as evidenced in your body of work.

I'd like to play the course where your creative talents were turned loose.  😜

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rob Marshall,


You'll have to forgive Shivas for not knowing what he's talking about.


Equitable stroke control regulates medal play in match as well as medal play.


And in case Shivas forgot, the primary purpose of golf is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible.


That's an objective that hasn't changed in centuries.


Many clubs have instituted policies that call for the club to post scores when the golfer fails to post their scores.


The difference in match and medal play is the compartmentalization of the scoring process.


One is a series of up to 18 or more holes that are eventually added up, where the other is the running cumulative result of each of those 18 holes.


Score... The lowest possible score remains the objective of the game, on a hole by hole basis or cumulatively.

[Joe Hancock]

Score... The lowest possible score remains the objective of the game, on a hole by hole basis or cumulatively.

Pat,

Have you ever, just once, hit a shot that was purely for the fun of it, even to the detriment of score? Or, is every golf outing for you an exercise of competition and score? No right or wrong answer here....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Score... The lowest possible score remains the objective of the game, on a hole by hole basis or cumulatively.

Pat,

Have you ever, just once, hit a shot that was purely for the fun of it, even to the detriment of score? Or, is every golf outing for you an exercise of competition and score? No right or wrong answer here....
 
Joe,
 
I've hit lots of shots that weren't the most prudent shots to hit.
Shots with a low percentile for success.
 
My objective doesn't change.
 
I want to play each hole in the lowest amount of strokes possible.
 
And, I have alot of fun in doing so.
 
What's you objective when you play a hole ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Perhaps to a fault, I hit shots, particularly around the greens, to discover how a particular feature actually works vs. what my mind is interpreting. If I am playing a friendly match in which I have a partner, I play with more attention to score as an obligation to my partner.

Admittedly, I play this way mainly because of my occupation, and the desire to learn is still strong. I'm a sucker for the fun shot over the best odds shot.

[Jud_T]

I think the need to post equitable scores for all matches keeps US players still focused on their medal score even when playing matches which is a major disadvantage of the way we do things on this side of the pond.  As a result many players bristle at quirk, rub of the green and "unfairness" unnecessarily.  Having said that, a number of the most heralded courses built in the last 25 years have loads of quirk and are wonderful match play tracks...

[William_G]

I agree with Pat

case in point East Lake, the PGA took out undulation and quirk to make it "fairer" and less interesting and less fun

[Jon Wiggett]

The lowest possible score remains the objective of the game, on a hole by hole basis or cumulatively.

Not so. The aim of the game from a competitive point of view is to beat the other competitors not the lowest score possible. Hence the old adage 'if you have TWO putts to win take them' rather than 'if you have two putts to win try to hole the first one' which it would be if the aim really was as you surmise to get the lowest score possible.

[Duncan Cheslett]

It would seem that the matchplay mindset is slightly different either side of the pond.

Over here, no-one putts out when a hole is lost, and generally players either walk in once a match is decided, or simply play out the remaining holes without keeping score. We only have to post a score for handicap purposes in official medal or Stableford competitions, putting in a minimum of four cards per year.

Consequently, in a matchplay game, one's focus is entirely on beating one's opponent on each hole, and in the match overall. One's cumulative score is completely irrelevant. 

I believe that this makes us more tolerant of quirk or "unfairness" as a bad break results at worst in the loss of one hole, rather than a potentially card-wrecking two or three strokes.

For the same reason, our love of the Stableford format in the UK makes us more tolerant of "unfairness". A total disaster results only in no score for that hole, rather than a wrecked card.

Having to post a medal score for every round played must inevitably lead to pressure for the elimination of "unfairness". THAT has most probably influenced architecture in the US.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The lowest possible score remains the objective of the game, on a hole by hole basis or cumulatively.

Not so. The aim of the game from a competitive point of view is to beat the other competitors not the lowest score possible.


Jon,

How much competitive golf have you played ?

And how do you go about beating your competitor/s ?

By shooting the lowest score possible, that's how


Hence the old adage 'if you have TWO putts to win take them' rather than 'if you have two putts to win try to hole the first one' which it would be if the aim really was as you surmise to get the lowest score possible.


That would only apply once you've reached the green.

So tell us, on the first tee, what's your objective for the first hole ?

To shoot the lowest score possible !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Perhaps to a fault, I hit shots, particularly around the greens, to discover how a particular feature actually works vs. what my mind is interpreting. If I am playing a friendly match in which I have a partner, I play with more attention to score as an obligation to my partner.


When I play a few holes in the late afternoon, I'll practice by dropping a few balls and attempt various shots.

But most of the time I'm playing a competitive round with a partner, for silver, green or pride.

Admittedly, I play this way mainly because of my occupation, and the desire to learn is still strong. I'm a sucker for the fun shot over the best odds shot.

Joe,

I think that's an inherent lure of the game, attempting a shot that may be beyond our ability

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

to beat your competitor(s) you do not have to shoot the lowest score possible or even the lowest score ever but rather you only have to shoot a score which is lower than that of your competitor(s). If you weren't so wrapped up in the deluded idea that you are always right you might realise that but then when have you ever thought you might have missed understood anything.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

to beat your competitor(s) you do not have to shoot the lowest score possible or even the lowest score ever but rather you only have to shoot a score which is lower than that of your competitor(s).


Jon,

As I stated previously, shooting the lowest score possible is the objective of the game.

Standing on the first tee, what's your objective on the first hole in medal play ?

In match play ?


If you weren't so wrapped up in the deluded idea that you are always right you might realise that but then when have you ever thought you might have missed understood anything.


You're dead wrong, especially since you don't know what your competitor/s score will be.

Irrespective of the format, you play the hole, not the man.

Why have you failed to answer my simple question ?

How much tournament golf have you competed in ?

And, what's your handicap ?

[Rob Marshall]

Pat, you are correct if you have no knowledge. If you know where your competition is during the final round you goal is to shoot low enough. Tiger Woods played the 18th at Doral as a three shot hole in his prime. He didn't care if he bogied the last. He just wanted to win.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rob,


I think one of the problems we have is that we often tend to view golf and the play of the game from the perspective of the PGA Tour.


In a non-PGA Tour medal play tournament, rarely do the individual competitors know where they stand relative to the field.


Citing the last golfer on the golf course, on the last hole of a 72 hole PGA Tour event is hardly representative of the mindset of golfers during the course of their rounds.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

you really are a strange old bird. Just because you repeatedly state something does not make it true. If you faced a 15 foot down hill putt and you two putts to win only a numbskull (I understand this might be a description of you) would give the first putt a real go and in doing so risk facing a longish putt back. Any other player would lag the putt to ensure the win thus not trying to achieve the lowest possible score but rather securing the win. And even if you do not know where you stand most players would still lag the first putt.

I do not expect you will understand it but never mind.

Correct Rob but Pat will never admit he understands this and therefor is wrong. He will constantly try to redefine and alter what he is saying rather than do this

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

you really are a strange old bird. Just because you repeatedly state something does not make it true. If you faced a 15 foot down hill putt and you two putts to win only a numbskull (I understand this might be a description of you) would give the first putt a real go and in doing so risk facing a longish putt back.


Jon,

The only reason I've repeated myself is because you don't get it.

You really are a dense bird.

In your example above, you're already on the green.
You've completely ignored your tee shot, you've completely ignored your approach shot and a possible recovery shot.


Any other player would lag the putt to ensure the win thus not trying to achieve the lowest possible score but rather securing the win. And even if you do not know where you stand most players would still lag the first putt.

Right, lag it and leave it 3 feet short
Since when does trying to make a downhill putt mean that you're going to hit it well beyond the hole ?
I'm going to try to make it and if I miss it, leave myself a tap in.

How much competitive tournament golf have you played ?

I do not expect you will understand it but never mind.

Correct Rob but Pat will never admit he understands this and therefor is wrong. He will constantly try to redefine and alter what he is saying rather than do this.


Jon, why have you repeatedly refused to answer my questions ?

How much competitive golf have you played ?
What's your handicap and what's your objective when you stand on the tee ?