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

[Ed Brzezowski]

Of course you play, par is only a number. Can you walk this course easily?

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.

[Garland Bayley]

... 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.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[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.  ...

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]

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 


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

[Garland Bayley]

...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 

...

You must be one of those nutcases.

[mike_beene]

I started at age 8 and that is exactly the way it was and I loved it.

[Thomas Dai]

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]

My wife would certainly agree, Thomas.

[Ben Sims]

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]

no

[Garland Bayley]

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.