Would you still play if........(part II)

[Thomas Dai]

The thread I started entitled "Would you still play if....." attracted some interesting thoughts and comments - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62482.0.html. Thank you all for them


Now comes Part II


Would you still play if ............. all par-3's required driver and then a full iron shot to the green, a par-4 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal followed by a pitch and a par-5 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal, yet another fairway metal followed by a hybrid or full shot with an iron?


Atb

[Dan Kelly]

Would you still play if ............. all par-3's required driver and then a full iron shot to the green, a par-4 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal followed by a pitch and a par-5 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal, yet another fairway metal followed by a hybrid or full shot with an iron?

Only if the term "fairway metal" were eliminated from the game.


And not with much enthusiasm, then.

[Tom_Doak]

It doesn't sound like there is much variety that way.  I don't think i'd keep playing if all courses were the same.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Welcome to the world of Ladies' golf.

They seem to enjoy it on the whole! 

[Thomas Dai]

Welcome to the world of Ladies' golf.
They seem to enjoy it on the whole! 

Duncan,

As I believe Captain Mainwaring once said "I wondered which one of you would think of that" as it was ladies golf that I was thinking about when I wrote the above.

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.

Maybe this is why in yee olde times that some clubs had a main (men's) course and a separate shorter ladies course. Some clubs still do have this arrangement.

Atb

[Joe Hancock]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

Your question boils down to whether one likes whacking the ball more than they like putting. At least that's my take on it.

I think it's more than that, though.  If you go too far in this direction, those first few shots are more about forward progress, because they are too far removed from scoring.  There aren't many players who don't care about scoring, on some level.  And scoring happens once you're close enough to get the ball in the hole.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I think that ladies just get accustomed to playing a lot of long shots from the fairway. You raise an interesting question though, insomuch as how many ladies give up the game rather than persevere with this?

On an average 6000 yard course, most men are only called upon to hit a fairway wood or hybrid on maybe three par 5s and three long par 4s. That's six times. The rest are generally par 3s or short-medium par 4s typically requiring Driver, 7 iron or Driver, wedge. I would suggest that most men are happy with this distribution of shots and wouldn't particularly want to play regularly on a course requiring a greater proportion of woods or long irons.

For average ability ladies (20-30 handicap) to enjoy a similar game the course would have to measure probably 4000 yards. Yet they are expected to slog their way round 5500 yards - the equivalent for men of a 7500 yard leviathan! For the occasional day out it's fine but how many of us would tire of that three times a week?

I'm pretty sure I would!

[Peter Pallotta]

Freud might as well have asked "what do golfers want"?

But Joe and Tom's post has me landing on a plausible answer: Golfers want to hit [what are for them] great shots, and shots that mean something, i.e. that have [immediate] consequences and offer [future] opportunities. 

My dislike of most Par 5s, and their [apparent] meaningless 2nd shots, is in part a reflection of my inability to recognize the subtler consequences and opportunities that the architect may be presenting. 

I think I might still play if Thomas' scenario became a reality -- but it is hard for me to imagine any architect being able to consistently offer [i.e. design] so many challenges and opportunities on each given hole, and hole after hole

[Duncan Cheslett]

To simplify it, I would say that golfers love hitting drives and love hitting greens.

Hitting a 3 wood or a 4 iron from one point in a fairway to another is much less satisfying than hitting a great drive or hitting a green.

Yet it's what ladies have to do a lot.

[Sean_A]

atb


Are you a sadist?  Why do you continue to offer dreadful versions of the game     Lets hope you never get the chance to design a course 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

atb
Are you a sadist?  Why do you continue to offer dreadful versions of the game     Lets hope you never get the chance to design a course 
Ciao

Part I of "Would you still play if ......" was interesting and so far Part II is looking promising.


Somewhere there is what I shall term an optimal golfing balancing point. I'm just attempting to find it!


Just wait for "Would you still play if........(part III)", which unlike The Goldfather Part III, will hopefully be worthwhile. You never know, there might even be Parts IV, V, VI etc!


Atb

[Kalen Braley]

I'm curious what the % is of female golfers to male golfers in both the US and worldwide.

Assuming its a lopsided fraction, would certainly be interesting to know how much this scenario is to blame....

[Dave Doxey]

"...all par-3's required driver and then a full iron shot to the green, a par-4 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal followed by a pitch and a par-5 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal, yet another fairway metal followed by a hybrid or full shot with an iron"


Depends...  If the above were required of me, but the rest of my foursome needed more shots, I'd play a LOT.  If the others needed fewer shots, I'd be less likely to play.  In any case, par is just a number.

[David_Tepper]

In the U.S., it appears most courses (certainly the newer ones) compensate by moving the ladies (red)  tees well forward of the mens (white) tees. In GB&I, it appears most courses compensate by adjusting long par-4's to par-5's for the women.

For example. Royal Dornoch is par-70 for men and par-76 for women.
 
One reason my wife enjoys playing Castle Stuart so much is it (being a modern course) has the ladies tees moved well forward.

[Sam Andrews]

Yes, so long as I am playing my peers or in a foursome with a monster hitter. My observation of the senior golfers at Rye is that they play a simpler game — they carry a light bag with fewer clubs because they tend to drive (160-200 yards), hit a long club (120-140 yards) maybe twice, chip and then putt. Probably 7-8 clubs in all. They play competitively against their age group and then they have lunch! When they do play in a foursome with a flatbelly (copyright Sean A) they have a great time because their chipping and putting is honed and they are in the scoring zone much earlier in the hole.

[jeffwarne]

To simplify it, I would say that golfers love hitting drives and love hitting greens.

Hitting a 3 wood or a 4 iron from one point in a fairway to another is much less satisfying than hitting a great drive or hitting a green.

Yet it's what ladies have to do a lot.

One thing that has to be considered is the scale.
If your drives are going 120-140 yards , it's a pretty big miss if you hit one out of play.
kind've like me missing a 90 yard wide fairway or a 130 yard wide corridor.


It always amazes me watching high hdcp players who hit it 240 hit a driver and an 8 iron, then skull and or chunk 3 wedges on their way to an 8. Not sure that's all that much more fun than a super long course.


To Mr. Dai's point,in my observation, people mainly only want to practice their full swings and long game, I'm not sure where a course that demands MORE long game would be LESS fun.
There certainly would be MORE strategy, especially if current corridors were maintained.
And to Tom Doak's point, people would have the same # of short game shots, just more of what they enjoy more anyway-full shots!


Of course my hope would be that the courses and land they use would shrink along with the equipment, freeing up a LOT more time and money for other things.


One things for sure-- the size of the courses and the land they use is growing, and the game is shrinking.
Perhaps some could open their minds to the possibility of going the other way.

[Jason Connor]

Your question seems to be predicated on the fact that everyone hits the ball the same distance.


What takes me driver, 5W would take someone else driver 5-iron.

[Thomas Dai]

One things for sure-- the size of the courses and the land they use is growing, and the game is shrinking.
Perhaps some could open their minds to the possibility of going the other way.

Nice one Jeff and just the kind of point this thread and the previous "Would you...." thread are attempting to get at, and radically if necessary as well, not just fiddling around in a minor way. Wait for "Would you.... (Part III)".


And as for continuous long shots prior to getting near a green, well on a standard full length course, that's what most ladies, numerous older senior men and most very young juniors are faced with, and to get out of this cycle tees have to pushed way forward, not just 20-40-60 yds, but way, way, way forward.


Or something else could happen. Any suggestions as to what very welcome?


Atb

[Ryan Coles]

The thread I started entitled "Would you still play if....." attracted some interesting thoughts and comments - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62482.0.html. Thank you all for them


Now comes Part II


Would you still play if ............. all par-3's required driver and then a full iron shot to the green, a par-4 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal followed by a pitch and a par-5 required a driver, fairway metal, another fairway metal, yet another fairway metal followed by a hybrid or full shot with an iron?


Atb

If it's good enough to keep Patrick Mucci interested, it's good enough for me.

[V. Kmetz]

I think it's more than that, though.  If you go too far in this direction, those first few shots are more about forward progress, because they are too far removed from scoring.  There aren't many players who don't care about scoring, on some level.  And scoring happens once you're close enough to get the ball in the hole.

I think why that registers with me, irregardless of the topic premise, is because of caddying for hundreds and hundreds of country club 3-36 HCPs, at a mean average HCP of "14" over the years...(this last season I jockeyed a 64 year old menschy real estate mogul's 23 HCP to a "39" on the back side to nip a much better player in his club's Presidents Cup C finals using the strategy TD's statement neccessitates)... the truth is that it is for so many players on a 380+ hole...they need to get "somewhere" first, before the nuances attendant to scoring can ever be appreciated or stimulated.


cheers


vk

[Ronald Montesano]

If par is so important, why not change 3s to 6s, 4s to 8s and 5s to 10s for the juniors, seniors and shorter-hitting ladies? Everything is relative.


Men (in denial) measure themselves against male professionals. Do women do the same with Euro and USA women's tours?


What you're proposing would make the game an 8-hour game and would toll the death knell of golf as we know it.

[Thomas Dai]

Ronald,

I'm not proposing such, merely investigating whether such a scenario would cause some folks (mainly men) to give up the game whilst at the same time equating the scenario to existing circumstances as they appertain to for example, many/most ladies, weaker seniors and very young juniors.

This is also Part II in a series of threads - See also my previous thread entitled "Would you still play if...." - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62482.0.html. A Part III will come along in due course.

All,

Please keep the comments coming.

Atb

[Joe Zucker]

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.  But if I look at it in a vacuum, would I play a game that required more fairway metals, the answer is yes.  Course may be slightly adapted to have more interesting second and third shots from longer distances, but the game would be similar overall.
I love going outside and hitting a ball with a stick, if that element is unchanged I would keep playing pretty much no matter what.  Many of us have played 700 yard holes on “cross country” courses in the shoulder season and loved it. Eighteen 700 yard holes might be less fun than hole lengths with more variety, but if there game of golf had evolved this way over the last few hundred years rather than into its current form, it would still be a worthwhile thing to do in my opinion.

[Rick Shefchik]

If par is so important, why not change 3s to 6s, 4s to 8s and 5s to 10s for the juniors, seniors and shorter-hitting ladies? Everything is relative.


Men (in denial) measure themselves against male professionals. Do women do the same with Euro and USA women's tours?

The women golfers I know measure themselves against each other, and their handicaps. Par is a relatively meaningless commodity; what they really care about is their dots. If they get enough strokes on a given hole, and don't throw a shot or two away, they can compete on a net basis with anyone. That it takes two or three shots to get in position to chip and putt is just part of the game to them. None of the high-handicap women I know complain about being tired because they had to swing too often.