News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ed Brzezowski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2016, 03:20:42 PM »
Of course you play, par is only a number. Can you walk this course easily?
We have a pool and a pond, the pond would be good for you.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2016, 03:44:32 PM »
I would keep playing, and I would care about par nearly as much as I currently do....

As long as the terrain was interesting, I think the game is still golf. Your question boils down to whether one likes whacking the ball more than they like putting. At least that's my take on it.


Gotta agree with Joe.
If people don't like hitting the ball, why do they go to the driving range and hit ball after ball? If you like hitting the ball, you should like playing golf with two, three, four, five, and six shot holes. It seems to me that with the feathery, most all holes were two shot or more holes. It was only with some nutcase academic named John Lowe did we get a treatise on what one, two, and three shot holes should be like, and an exclusion of others.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2016, 03:48:42 PM »

...
As you say "while they seem to enjoy it on the whole" I can't help but wonder if one of the reasons that only approx 15% of golfers are female is because of distance and well, the boredom of continuously hitting full shots with long clubs to get near greens.

Irrespective of the handicap system I can't help but wonder if boredom isn't a significant factor. I'd certainly be pretty bored hitting seemingly endless fairway metal shots and only getting fractionally nearer to a green after each one.
...


I think you are missing the boat on this. The vast number of women that don't play, don't play because the game is difficult IMHO. As my wife says, the stick is too long, and the ball is too small.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #28 on: February 04, 2016, 03:52:54 PM »
... There aren't many players who don't care about scoring, on some level.  ...


The only scoring that matters is the difference between the number of strokes you have taken on a hole and your opponent(s).
This did not start as a medal play game. It started as a match play game where they kept the difference in strokes on a hole, not the number of strokes. The term "playing the like" is a reference to playing the shot the evens the number of strokes taken on a hole.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2016, 04:01:53 PM »
I think I would still play.  If we compare this “new” version the game to the current form, it seems boring and lacks some of the interest we have now.  ...


The current version of medal play with one result for 18 holes is boring. The original form of the game with 18 results in 18 holes is far more entertaining IMO.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Joe Zucker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2016, 04:12:46 PM »
I think I would still play.  If we compare this “new” version the game to the current form, it seems boring and lacks some of the interest we have now.  ...


The current version of medal play with one result for 18 holes is boring. The original form of the game with 18 results in 18 holes is far more entertaining IMO.


Perhaps, but when I said "current version" I was referring to lengths of holes, rather than how the score is usually kept.  Sorry if there was confusion.


Keeping with Thomas' topic, if the course was dramatically lengthened, match play would still work.  The medal play numbers would obviously increase, but that is on a relative scale.  Scores in the 90s would all of the sudden be very good!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2016, 07:09:10 PM »
I would keep playing, and I would care about par nearly as much as I currently do....

As long as the terrain was interesting, I think the game is still golf. Your question boils down to whether one likes whacking the ball more than they like putting. At least that's my take on it.


Gotta agree with Joe.
If people don't like hitting the ball, why do they go to the driving range and hit ball after ball? If you like hitting the ball, you should like playing golf with two, three, four, five, and six shot holes. It seems to me that with the feathery, most all holes were two shot or more holes. It was only with some nutcase academic named John Lowe did we get a treatise on what one, two, and three shot holes should be like, and an exclusion of others.




Uhhh, I hate the range because its just hitting balls.  I never liked batting practice either  8)


Most of the relatively small number of women who do play golf probably have not had the opportunity to play good courses designed for women...courses which would top out at no more 5500 yards...and to be honest, courses which likely are less than 5000 yards.  They play courses designed for men with forward tees tagged on...courses which are a slog.  Given the opportunity to play courses designed around their skill set, I bet a ton of women would be delighted not to hit woods all day. 


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2016, 07:35:38 PM »
...It was only with some nutcase academic named John Lowe did we get a treatise on what one, two, and three shot holes should be like, and an exclusion of others.




Uhhh, I hate the range because its just hitting balls.  I never liked batting practice either  8)

...


You must be one of those nutcases. ;D

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

mike_beene

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2016, 12:13:21 AM »
I started at age 8 and that is exactly the way it was and I loved it.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2016, 06:25:33 AM »
Most of the relatively small number of women who do play golf probably have not had the opportunity to play good courses designed for women...courses which would top out at no more 5500 yards...and to be honest, courses which likely are less than 5000 yards.  They play courses designed for men with forward tees tagged on...courses which are a slog.  Given the opportunity to play courses designed around their skill set, I bet a ton of women would be delighted not to hit woods all day. 
Ciao


Since starting this particular thread I have been asking lady golfers of various abilities what they think about the length of courses they play, the length of holes, the distance they hit the ball, how many full shots with fairway metals they have to hit etc and what Sean has written above sums up their reaction pretty nicely.


Atb

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2016, 06:50:04 AM »
My wife would certainly agree, Thomas.

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2016, 08:10:04 AM »
If we assume today's technology, based on my own play, this course would need to be 9000+ yds. I think. Maybe my math is off, but h certainly don't think it would be less. A statute mile is 1760yds. So you've just added a minimum of a mile and a half to the walk. Also, you've greatly decreased margin of error for advancement of the ball (long clubs are harder to hit). Im guessing that a 2-ball, by two relatively in shape folks would now take 4 hours. Which means normal rounds by non-GCA.com'rs would be 5.5hrs.

So yeah, I'm out. That sounds awful.

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2016, 09:43:14 AM »
no
Mr Hurricane

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Would you still play if........(part II)
« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2016, 10:56:59 AM »
High handicappers can muff the drive, muff the fairway wood second, hit a fairway wood, and a pitch on a par four, and still are enthusiastic about playing. I guess the difference is that this doesn't happen every hole for most.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back