News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #75 on: August 07, 2018, 07:24:55 AM »
John’s statement about luck becoming less and less a factor and the game becoming more and more fair is correct. :-\  Thank goodness for The Open and links golf  :)
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 07:31:51 AM by Mark_Fine »

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #76 on: August 07, 2018, 08:11:50 AM »
I have to admit that when Tiger was winning everything he seemed like the luckiest golfer of all time. Remember when he missed every bunker for four rounds at St. Andrews? How lucky was that?

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #77 on: August 07, 2018, 08:33:11 AM »
Reminds me a little of Matt Damon's line in Rounders: "How come the same 5 guys make the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? Do you think they're the 5 luckiest guys in the world?


Of course, with the explosion of the event, the first part is no longer true.


I personally believe fair is a 4 letter word of the worst kind, so I sympathize a little, Mark F. But I'm not foolish enough to tilt at that windmill... :) However, the word itself must always be viewed in the context its used and one's knowledge of the user. If someone thoughtful uses it, I generally understand what he means and don't condemn its usage.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #78 on: August 07, 2018, 08:34:11 AM »
Good point John!  He was actually unlucky to have only won three Opens out of 20 plus tries?  Rub of the green I guess  ;)

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #79 on: August 07, 2018, 09:31:20 AM »
The good news for guys Iike John is that we are making progress to making sure luck is all but rubbed out of the game.  Bunkers are almost perfect these days especially for the best players in the world.  There is a spec on the sand and at places like Augusta National it is all but impossible to get a bad or unpredictable lie.  How would we identify the most skilled sand players if that happened.  Fairway contouring is also starting to get flatter.  Rumpled fairways make no sense as a perfect drive could hit a mound or undulation and carom off into the rough or a bunker.  Speaking of bunkers, there is a trend toward moderating the severity of fairway bunkers to provide a more measured penalty for offline drives.  God forbid a player only missing the fairway by a few yards, ends up in a bunker and can’t play a shot to the green.  This is kind of like the USGA’s graduated rough.  This is much more fair.  I still like the idea of placing a line down the middle of the fairway so they can measure length and accuracy as well.  We need to figure out a way to reward that? We also need to continue to reduce contouring in the greens.  This is what leads to the biggest problem for the USGA.  If greens were flat then who cares if the greens get faster during the day like they did at Shinnecock?  We will get there.  It might just take more time :'(

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #80 on: August 07, 2018, 09:50:27 AM »
The best way to reduce luck is to cut down all the trees. Congrats!!!

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #81 on: August 07, 2018, 10:07:30 AM »
Increasing width also takes getting lucky out of the equation. Everyone gets a recovery shot. How fun!!!

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2018, 10:15:05 AM »
From where I sit it looks like the role of the modern renovation architect is to reduce the need for luck from every angle. The trifecta of removing and/or trimming trees, increasing width and improving maintenance seems to tee it up for every golfer regardless of skill level.


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2018, 12:15:36 PM »
Tiger Woods career winning %, as great as it was still "only" 24%


That means he lost more than 3 out 4 tournaments he entered as a pro.  For comparison, Rory is 2nd best at 9%...and it falls off down to 3-7% for most of the other games greats.


While I agree that skill is the essential component to golf, its not the only thing...luck still plays fairly sizeable role.  And they all admit they need some good breaks/lucky bounces to win.

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2018, 12:46:52 PM »
There is little that is just or appropriate about golf
I strongly disagree.

And to support that I will point out that better players win far more frequently.


IMHO, that's in no small part due to the fact that they are much better equipped to deal with the injustices. I believe this also explains why some players who appear to have all the skill and talent necessary to be great never achieve greatness.


In fact, I believe that one of golf's most interesting characteristics is that it tests player's mental toughness by being so unfair.


The best players have always been able to overcome that.


K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2018, 01:16:47 PM »
Amen Ken and let’s hope it stays that way.

Peter Pallotta

Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #86 on: August 07, 2018, 01:59:40 PM »
Well, just to say: I think John K is right more often than he's wrong. And on these last few posts, try as I might (to play word games or to defend the conventional wisdom), I can't disagree with him, i.e.
The marked trend today towards width, tree trimming, and turf uniformity/maintenance *is* taking 'luck' out of the game -- all in the name of fun for the widest range of golfers possible.
In fact, one could almost say that the game is becoming more and more 'fair' by the minute, in this second golden age of new builds and renovations.
That shouldn't surprise or offend anyone: I mean, happy golfers make for happy clients make for happy architects, and then more and more happy golfers in a virtuous circle of ever-increasing joy and financial prosperity...

p     

Joe Zucker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2018, 02:01:56 PM »
It's also worth pointing out the statistics of luck will equalize as sample size grows.  In match play, bad or good luck could certainly cause a player to win a hole (getting lucky over the course of 3 or 4 shots). However, over the course of a 72 hole tournament with 270-280ish shots, good and bad luck will equalize for a play and across players. 


Hitting a 300 yard drive down the middle that ends up in a divot seems like bad luck if viewing the event on a one hole basis.  But if you hit forty 300 yard drives over the tournament and only 1 ends up in a divot, this doesn't seem so bad.  The point that luck is not a big deal because better players almost always win is due to the fact that any luck (good or bad) will average out over enough holes.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2018, 02:27:18 PM »
Amen Ken and let’s hope it stays that way.

Did you not just endorse Ken's use of fairness of golf courses?
"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: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2018, 02:46:52 PM »
I am always amused by participants tying fairness to being rewarded or penalized proportional to the quality of the shot. By that definition, 220 acres of perfectly level astroturf with 18 holes and painted lines to designate hole boundaries so the players know where to go would be the epitome of fair. As soon as you add an undulation or a bunker, the fairness is gone.

I am also amused when a low handicapper has essentially the same shot as I do, mess it up, and call the feature unfair. Often inspires me to make my shot have an excellent result.

"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

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #90 on: August 07, 2018, 03:06:15 PM »
Well, just to say: I think John K is right more often than he's wrong. And on these last few posts, try as I might (to play word games or to defend the conventional wisdom), I can't disagree with him, i.e.
The marked trend today towards width, tree trimming, and turf uniformity/maintenance *is* taking 'luck' out of the game -- all in the name of fun for the widest range of golfers possible.
In fact, one could almost say that the game is becoming more and more 'fair' by the minute, in this second golden age of new builds and renovations.
That shouldn't surprise or offend anyone: I mean, happy golfers make for happy clients make for happy architects, and then more and more happy golfers in a virtuous circle of ever-increasing joy and financial prosperity...

p     

Pietro

While I am not surprised by your comments/opinon, I am surprised that folks think widening fairways and/or pushing back trees decreases luck.  Though, as I have suspected for some time, it comes down to what type of courses one is used to playing.  Sure, back in Michigan for many Detroit area courses, it takes some architectural savvy to widen fairways and maintain difficulty and the aspect of luck. I think Orchard Lake made a very good job of it.  That said, the trend to push back against trees to any real degree is still very much a minor blip. 

Taking the concept to where I play golf, I just played St Georges Hill and the combination of width (probably 45-50 yard fairways), playability from the treed areas/rough and the rolling terrain is just about a spot on combination for luck to thrive and fun to be had while still challenging handicap golfers without beating them over the head with yardage.  It is very easy to get stuck outside the desired lines of play and be faced with very difficult recoveries without trees impeding.  To me, this is symptomatic of good architecture...which I would think practically any archie would like to produce. 

Are there archies out there who aspire to require golfers to play down the straight and narrow as Jones did for Oakland Hills and Hazeltine?  If there are, nobody is fessing up, yet we have thousands of courses which require exactly this type of golf.  However, I understand (to some degree) the backlash against this recent tend of open courses in far off places because many of the archie elements look the same and I expect play very much the same as well.  I often feel that way about links and heathland courses, but I rarely feel that way about hilly courses which require gravity based play.  They all look and play differently to me and often require luck...luck not as in balls bouncing against the grain, but luck in not knowing a course well enough to know how to play the shot well, but it is still executed well.  Places such as Kington are the extreme version of this because of the micro undulations...and also a big reason why TOC is often lauded as the best course on the planet.  The element of luck (again, meaning folks don't know the course well enough to choose the best shot much of the time or maybe the undulations are blind) is very much alive despite everything modernity throws at the girl.

Ciao
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 05:42:52 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #91 on: August 07, 2018, 03:16:32 PM »
Garland,
I don’t think so.  I was saying amen to the mental aspect and unjust nature of the game.

Peter Pallotta

Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #92 on: August 07, 2018, 03:39:36 PM »
Sean - I was about to post something on another thread that aligns with one of your thoughts.
This topic is yet another example of how playing experience shapes opinions/perspectives.
I've not had the pleasure of playing many top-flight courses, and none by the likes of Jeff B or Tom D or Bill C.
But I have played several courses by (not as talented) architects built during these past 15-20 years under the current 'model'.
And *those* experiences lead me to say that, while I like fun as much as the next fellow, I find that wide, treeless, fun courses can turn out to be bland and one-dimensional courses in a heartbeat, when designed by less-skilled hands.
My point/pov is simply this: I simply don't think the current consensus about what qualifies as quality architecture necessarily merits that level of consensus.
P   
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 03:41:13 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #93 on: August 07, 2018, 03:42:32 PM »
Garland,
I don’t think so.  I was saying amen to the mental aspect and unjust nature of the game.

And, why do you think the game is unfair? The courses are the major component of the game.
"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

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #94 on: August 07, 2018, 03:50:17 PM »
Garland,
There are pages and pages of text in this thread that explains my position on this topic.  I copied a passage from my book as well as an article I co-authored for one of the golf magazines.  i don't know what else to say.
Mark

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #95 on: August 07, 2018, 05:21:05 PM »
Rub of the green I guess  ;)
Mark, you're complaining about people using the word "fair" while now for at least the second time, IIRC, mis-using this phrase. Rub of the green does not mean "bad luck." It's defined in the Rules of Golf (through the end of the year, at least).  :D

To matters at hand, you seem to be hung up on the idea of luck - smoothing out fairways, drives ending up in divot holes, getting bunkers to the same consistency… when few others are really talking about it much. Most here that I have seen are talking about luck as something that happens, good and bad, and so long as it's not excessive… it's fine. Nobody here has talked about bunkers needing to be consistent. Nobody here has talked about fairway contouring needing to be flattened. Or drives not ending up in divot holes. Nobody here has… well, except you, I guess.

I understand you're hearing that from greens committees and other things, but you're not really getting much of that stuff from us. So why keep posting about it? Just going off on a rant? Okay, I can appreciate a good rant. But I'm not seeing many people here argue that a ball going in a divot hole or a course with slightly different bunker textures is "unfair." I think you're under-estimating the intelligence of your audience, or talking down to it perhaps. At the very least, people can appreciate that the result of a single shot being "unfair" (if we want to use that word) because of "bad luck" doesn't make the entire course or even the the challenges that normally face that particular shot on that particular hole unfair.

In other words, I've never seen or heard a golfer hit a sprinkler head and have his ball bounce over the green say "man, this course is so unfair." They will say "man, that was a bad break." I think that most people - and certainly the audience here - can separate a normal or reasonable amount of lucky (and unlucky) outcomes from the way the course or any shot on the course plays the vast majority of the time.

I hit the ball above the 11th hole at Lake View CC here near my home the other day. That green is about a 5-6% slope (or more) over most of the surface. I knew it, and I hit a bad shot to get there. I paid the price with a three-putt (though I almost made the 15-footer back up the hill), but that wasn't luck, either - the hole is "fair" IMO because you just can't get above the hole location there.

While I agree that skill is the essential component to golf, its not the only thing...luck still plays fairly sizeable role.  And they all admit they need some good breaks/lucky bounces to win.
I disagree that luck has a "fairly sizable role."

Tiger didn't win every week for the same reason baseball teams don't go 162-0, even if they're playing in a weak division, and football teams rarely even go 16-0. 72 holes is a small sample size (just as nine innings are, and four quarters), and player performances fluctuate a little. Over the long haul, Tiger Woods wins his fair share of events, but he can't perform at the same level every week. He's not a machine. He's as close as we've seen, perhaps, but he's not. It's far, far, far more about actual performance than "luck." Over the long haul, the Yankees win their fair share of games. Over the long haul, the Browns lose a lot of their games, even if they can occasionally beat the Patriots.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #96 on: August 07, 2018, 05:57:59 PM »
Sean - I was about to post something on another thread that aligns with one of your thoughts.
This topic is yet another example of how playing experience shapes opinions/perspectives.
I've not had the pleasure of playing many top-flight courses, and none by the likes of Jeff B or Tom D or Bill C.
But I have played several courses by (not as talented) architects built during these past 15-20 years under the current 'model'.
And *those* experiences lead me to say that, while I like fun as much as the next fellow, I find that wide, treeless, fun courses can turn out to be bland and one-dimensional courses in a heartbeat, when designed by less-skilled hands.
My point/pov is simply this: I simply don't think the current consensus about what qualifies as quality architecture necessarily merits that level of consensus.
P

Pietro

I am uncertain as to what you use for consensus.  So you don't think enough US Open type parkland courses are included in top 100-200 rankings?  I will admit there has been a backlash against this (imo) overly dominant style of design in recent years.  Regardless, quality architecture of all types exists whether properly recognized or not, but I still maintain there must be a reasonable amount of width for any real choices to be made.  That isn't to say that a very constricting course can't be great and/or interesting, but I think it is more difficult to pull off that sort of design.  I have never been, but Oakmont seems like it may be a case in point. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #97 on: August 07, 2018, 05:58:32 PM »
Erik,
Rub of the green can mean good luck or back luck.  I tried to explain that in my example of the golfer at The Old Course who ended up on the macadam pathway.  Was that good luck or back luck for him?  It was just a circumstance that happened - rub of the green as I define it. 


I think we beat this to death (probably 50 posts ago)  :)  I just don't think the word fair is a good word to use to describe golf or golf courses and I will leave it at that. 


My wife just cut me a piece of honest watermelon.  Catch up later!
Mark

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #98 on: August 07, 2018, 06:37:12 PM »
Rub of the green can mean good luck or back luck.
No, it doesn't. Rub of the Green is clearly defined and means: "A "rub of the green" occurs when a ball in motion is accidentally deflected or stopped by any outside agency (see Rule 19-1)." It's kinda silly that you're here telling other people their definitions of "fair" as it applies to a golf course are all bogus while continually mis-using and attempting to re-define a phrase that already has a golf-specific definition.


I think "fair" is a perfectly good word to use to describe a golf course (and/or how it's set up).
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: I have great respect for Geoff Shackelford, but ??
« Reply #99 on: August 07, 2018, 06:43:25 PM »
Erik,
You are hung up on the rule book 😳. The origin of Rub of the Green is LUCK!   


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back