[Garland Bayley]

No, the term should be “inconsequential”.

Most objection has been that all shots count, and therefore are consequential. I was trying to find a word that escaped that.

[Garland Bayley]

Arbitrary

[jeffwarne]

I'm struggling to see why a second shot on a par five when one can't reach(-which used to be the norm for everyone not named Jack Nicklaus)....
is irrelevant...


to say that the club you hit for the second shot "just doesn't matter" seems crazy to me-unless you're Moe Norman and can hit "wedge-driver" for the second and third shots on the par 5


but tee shots, especially those played with something other than drivers...are somehow relevant..




If your second shot on a par 5 "just doesn't matter" you're either really good, or playing really poorly designed golf courses.
I guess the potential GIR for all level police don't enjoy cross country golf


[size=78%] [/size]

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

The second shot on a par 5 can be irrelevant (arbitrary) if it takes you 4 shots to reach.

Actually, it might be better to talk about degrees of arbitrariness where something like Brodie's stats could assign a degree value.

Then of course the Warne rating system could evaluate courses for lacking arbitrariness for a set of golfers such mens and womens scratch and bogey golfers.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Surely the whole point of the second shot on a par 5 for most golfers is simply to belt it as far as possible down the fairway, ideally to a position that gives a favourable approach to the green.


As a fairway wood is possibly the most difficult shot to pull off for most players, and consequently the one that gives the most satisfaction when executed well, how can it be "irrelevant" ?

[Pete_Pittock]

A shot on a golf course becomes irrelevant if it seems to have as much value as a shot on the driving range.

[Duncan Cheslett]

A shot on a golf course becomes irrelevant if it seems to have as much value as a shot on the driving range.

So that's most tee shots on longish holes then...

[Pete_Pittock]

A shot on a golf course becomes irrelevant if it seems to have as much value as a shot on the driving range.

So that's most tee shots on longish holes then...

Not quite. A good tee shot on a longish hole to the proper position might get rewarded because of an easier next shot.
In my example, if the shot does nor improve the second shot because there is no place where that would happen is where I was driving in my prior entry.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Not quite. A good tee shot on a longish hole to the proper position might get rewarded because of an easier next shot.
In my example, if the shot does nor improve the second shot because there is no place where that would happen is where I was driving in my prior entry.

Fair enough.


I would suggest then, that the least important shots for the average player are drives on par 5s and long par 4s. On these holes the second shot is the important one, playing for position for the final pitch to the green. The tee shot is generally of far less consequence, as a decent second shot can normally make up for an indifferent drive.

[Sean_A]

A very strange thread. In my golf world all shots are relavant.The issue is more about a scale from exciting to dull shots. In which case the pitch - out is the dullest thing going. Which then leads me to question why anybody would be in favour of design and set up which promotes such a style of golf.

I wish folks would stop applying math formulas and stats to golf. That is even duller than the pitch-out, but is nowhere near as practical.

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

A very strange thread. In my golf world all shots are relavant.

Agree 100%. How can any shot be anything but relevant (or any synonym/euphemism) when every shot counts the same?

[A.G._Crockett]

A very strange thread. In my golf world all shots are relavant.

Agree 100%. How can any shot be anything but relevant (or any synonym/euphemism) when every shot counts the same?

Sigh...

[JMEvensky]

A very strange thread. In my golf world all shots are relavant.

Agree 100%. How can any shot be anything but relevant (or any synonym/euphemism) when every shot counts the same?

Sigh...

All due respect,it's a marketing shtick--Bergin hasn't reinvented the wheel.

[Jeff_Brauer]

IMHO, the problems are summarized by the post that started with "In my world...…"

How about "unnecessarily necessary?"  As mentioned, no average male would play holes with several intermediate shots.  Maybe even "intermediate" isn't a bad term.

As to the second shot on most par 5's, while probably worthy of a separate discussion, I have always wondered why they exist.  The most "efficient" golf is where a tee shot sets up success for the approach shot, and the approach shot sets up success for a putt.


For whatever reason, back in the day, "they" thought a few longer holes with three shots were worthwhile, either because the land forced it, as an occasional reward for length, or maybe there are a few good ways to make a tee shot set up a second to set up a third.  In practice, its rare, and no matter how you cut it, the middle shot isn't as inherently enjoyable as the tee shot or approach, nor is it actually as enjoyable. 


I have to believe that designing a purposely inherently less interesting shot is less "good" than trying to design all interesting shots.  TBH, I believe the par 5 may die a slow death anyway - between being nearly impossible to make a  3 shot hole for top players, a movement to stop designing for top players on most courses, or water shortages that will strongly suggest limiting turf and total golf acreage, etc., they may not be considered worthwhile or good enough to make it in some future iteration of golf.

[A.G._Crockett]

A very strange thread. In my golf world all shots are relavant.

Agree 100%. How can any shot be anything but relevant (or any synonym/euphemism) when every shot counts the same?

Sigh...

All due respect,it's a marketing shtick--Bergin hasn't reinvented the wheel.

"All due respect"?  Is that a joke?


I don't think Bill has claimed to have reinvented anything, including the wheel.  He was speaking on a particular topic at a symposium, nothing more. 


Substituting somewhat insulting characterizations instead of discussing the term intelligently and IN CONTEXT is unfortunate, and the type of thing that makes this site so much less than it used to be in the days of Paul and Mucci and Naccarato and Huckaby and the rest that have moved on. 


If anybody has any questions about the term, or Bill Bergin's work, or Longleaf, for that matter, PM me; I'm out of this thread, and I can't imagine that anyone will find that disappointing.

[Garland Bayley]

...
As to the second shot on most par 5's, while probably worthy of a separate discussion, I have always wondered why they exist.  The most "efficient" golf is where a tee shot sets up success for the approach shot, and the approach shot sets up success for a putt.


For whatever reason, back in the day, "they" thought a few longer holes with three shots were worthwhile, either because the land forced it, as an occasional reward for length, or maybe there are a few good ways to make a tee shot set up a second to set up a third.  In practice, its rare, and no matter how you cut it, the middle shot isn't as inherently enjoyable as the tee shot or approach, nor is it actually as enjoyable. 


I have to believe that designing a purposely inherently less interesting shot is less "good" than trying to design all interesting shots.  TBH, I believe the par 5 may die a slow death anyway - between being nearly impossible to make a  3 shot hole for top players, a movement to stop designing for top players on most courses, or water shortages that will strongly suggest limiting turf and total golf acreage, etc., they may not be considered worthwhile or good enough to make it in some future iteration of golf.

Old time architects argued against short holes, and argued turning 18 holes into 12 so that putting would not become overly important. Now we see these new fangled architects arguing against long holes, thereby indirectly elevating putting's importance.
 

It seems to me that golf was intended to be a succession of strokes until nearing the hole in which case a putt or two was used to finalize the deal. In who's imagination does succession of strokes mean 1 or 2?

Duncan pointed out a few posts back that a well struck fairway wood is a major achievement that should be savored. So the shot was not irrelevant. There are a lot of golfers that enjoy hitting the ball. There are a lot of average golfers that enjoy hitting the ball enough that they want to play from the tips no matter how high their score goes. So let's put an end to this talk of getting rid of par 5s.

[Garland Bayley]

There are golf courses that have hazards that the weaker golfers simply cannot play across. Now hitting every ball in their bag into the hazard is the true definition of irrelevant shots. 

[Ken Moum]

I'm not real  sure why we're discussing this, because the believers and non-believers are pretty much anchored in in place.


However, I've been trying to come up with a way of 'splaining why it's so.


So here goes:


~400+ years ago golf was mainly about avoiding trouble, and every shot except the last few on a hole had that goal.


Fast forward to the Golden Age when the architects started talking about "strategy," which most everyone here claims to believe in.  If I understand it correctly, a great strategic course gives golfers choices on almost every shot that are going to have a big influence on the succeeding shot.


Get a shot in the right position and you're REWARDED for your achievement with a chance to make a lower score.  Of course this is also true of avoidance shots, but the reward is really delayed.


But even on "strategic" courses, a lot of tee shots on long holes were about avoiding trouble, and hitting it far enough to make the next shot strategically interesting.


For a player who drives it 150-195 yards off the tee, any hole longer than 290 for the shortest players and 375 or so for the longer of them means that most second shots, and a whole lot of third shots simply cannot have much in the way of strategic interest. 


When those shots are about avoiding trouble and getting maximum distance, they absolutely become less strategic and less interesting.


If you're one of those players, you only have  to play a few rounds on a course that better suits your ability to hit it for distance to realize that the game becomes MUCH more interesting strategically.


This is why elite players hate par threes that require a fairway wood, and  par fives that are essentially unreachable.


And, for those who know women and senior men who won't move up, I've known pleny of them too.  The simple answer is that they haven't tried it with an open mind.  I used to play with a bunch of seniors who were BAD golfers.  Except for me, the lowest handicap most days was 20, and the majority of them couldn't hit it 180 off the tee.


One other guy and I started playing up one tee, @5800 or so.  Then our Men's Club match play league started letting anyone 65 or over play those tees.  Within a couple of months that group was playing the shorter tees every day.


And they all said golf was more fun.


The following isn't about topic, but is another explanation of why some players won't move up.


But there is a problem.  Regardless of what Garland says, players who move from a course that is too long for them, to one that allows them a chance at getting on in regulation will see a drop in their handicap.  And even with the adjustments made when they play longer courses, they'll be giving up shots.


The simple fact is that the GHIN system is broken, and it's not going to be fixed any time soon with the new global handicap initiative.


A perfect example is mt mother, who played into her 80s.  She played Mesa CC for years at 5800 yards for the shortest tees, but once a year we had a family event that was sometimes played at Red Mountain Ranch where the forward tees are Alice Dye-inspired 4800 yards.


At that distance, she couldn't be beaten.  And the women of MCC have a record in interclub matches that has to be unmatched.


Anyone who plays much competition at handicap on a wide variety of course knows this is true.  There's simply not enough difference in course rating and slope between difficult courses and easy courses.


Another example is Brauer's course in Manhattan KS.  I've played interclub matches there and their players were carrying indexes that made them virtually unbeatable. My opponent and I had similar indexes and if he played his everyday golf at my home course he'd be giving me 4 or 5 shots.  Our team, which had a very good record in such matches got murdered.

[JESII]

Wait a second, I misunderstood the shots we’re speaking about. If you’re suggesting the shot that sets up the approach shot is irrelevant because it doesn’t reach the green, I’d say you need to play more interesting golf courses.


I thought we’re we’re talking about the 2nd shot when it takes 4 to reach a green...

[Ira Fishman]

The topic of the relationship between architecture and the health of the sport in terms of number of regular players is one of the more significant ones that we frequently discuss. I have a few observations that might seem internally inconsistent.


I am a big proponent of forward tees for golfers of all genders and ages because there are lots of reasons that holes that are too long for our abilities are a detriment to enjoying the game and the architecture of a given course.


However, I do not think that score against Par or being able to hit a green in regulation is a compelling reason for more forward tees. Each of us has our own “Par” and “GIR”.
My wife is a 24 who views a Par as a reason to celebrate, but she does not have less fun because she cannot hit most greens in regulation. And she finds every shot worth thought and concentration. None is irrelevant for her (or me in my battle against Bogey).


My sense is that length of holes is not a barrier to enjoyment for regular golfers, but rather for beginners. Experienced golfers have decided that they like the game. Beginners, especially adults, are intimidated by the game. The Family Tees at many courses are a great way to overcome that barrier for kids. We need to find the same and more ways to encourage interested but beginner golfers to embrace the game.


Ira

[Garland Bayley]

...
But there is a problem.  Regardless of what Garland says, players who move from a course that is too long for them, to one that allows them a chance at getting on in regulation will see a drop in their handicap.  And even with the adjustments made when they play longer courses, they'll be giving up shots.


The simple fact is that the GHIN system is broken, and it's not going to be fixed any time soon with the new global handicap initiative.
...

The handicap system is not necessarily broken, but obviously it is not perfect. A course superintendent can send it haywire on his own. My club had a super that set the tees back behind the distance markers, and everyone had handicaps that traveled well. The next super always sets them forward of the distance markers, and handicaps don't travel well anymore.

When it comes to moving to shorter tees, off hand I would guess the player with superb short game skills will fair better that the person that didn't. The skilled player was getting better results when not reaching in regulation, and that would perhaps cause their index to go down from the shorter tees. I already have from the Pope of Slope that the longer player would be the candidate for index going down when moving back tees, so my guess is an opposite effect would take place when moving forward.

I don't think you can draw any conclusion from a couple of examples.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()