[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

I think you're confusing alternate routes of play, based on ability with options.
If we look at all 18 holes at NGLA the HIGH handicap has very few options.  They must take a different route then the LOW handicap player, but that's not an option, it's a mandate.
The first three holes are a perfect example.  The low handicap can carry the left side grunge and bunkers, the high handicap must go the safe route down the center or right side.  On # 2, the Low handicap can carry the bunker and reach the green, the high handicap must go right and safe.  On # 3 the Low handicap can carry the long diagonal bunker on the right side, the high handicap must take the safer shorter route.  So play for the high handicap it dictated, whereas, only the LOW handicap has options available to them.

DMoriarty,

I think you're confusing "margin for error" with options.

And, you appear to be saying, that with your ball striking ability badly damaged, the options have been taken away from you, and that's exactly my point.  You only have an option if you're capable of executing the different shots, and now that you can't execute the variety of shots, the options aren't available to you.

TEPaul,

Even if we get golf courses to your ideal "mainainance meld" condition, unless the golfer is capable of executing a variety of shots, options will not be available.

Would the better players hone their game to acquire those shots ?  Yes, I think they would, but for those players incapable of those shots, no options will exist.

Tom MacWood,

The umbrella like greens at # 2 have always provided for variety in recovery, especially after the invention of the Lob wedge and use of the Texas wedge.  But, club selection from 15 feet off of a green has always been individualistic, and patterned.  I doubt that you'd get much variety, like a player using all 14 clubs in recovering from off the greens.  I think that different players may make different choices in recovering, but I think that each player has their narrower, patterned choice of clubs, so much so that club selection for recovery is consistent, and not varied.

I have a good friend who putts his ball from off the green from 80 yards out, and in.  But, he does so because he can't pitch or chip.

With respect to getting much older, my options will become more limited, because my abilities won't permit me to take alternate routes.  I'll be forced to take a safer approach to each shot, a more defined route to the hole.  I will not have the options that were available to me as a better player.  While I may be able to visualize them, I won't be able to execute them, hence, for all practical purposes, options won't exist for me.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

Telling us directly that options are a figment of our imaginations is unbearably condescending.

Anyone who can hit a short iron at the flag or away from the flag (which is a tremendous number of golfers) and for whatever reason chooses one or the other is exercising options.

[Mike Hendren]

Great topic, Patrick.  

This from George C. Thomas, Jr.

"Golf is played with the head as well as with the hands.  The stretegy of the game is as important as the swing.  How many players practice strategy?  How many courses supply it?"

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Since you indicate that a TREMENDOUS number of golfers can hit a short iron at a pin, or away from the pin, could you qualify your remark by telling me what handicap players can hit a 7 or 8 iron from 140 - 150 yards at a pin, and execute that shot with reasonable certainty ?

Aiming and executing are worlds apart, and are the domain of the low handicap.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

A while back I thought about starting a thread "Is golf better when you are not THAT good?"

My question was a response to observing golf professional Lee Janzen play at Waterville with two handicap players (probably somewhere in the 10-12 range).

Janzen made has way around the course in 67, I believe, with a precision that made his game seem uninteresting. By contrast, the handicap players seem to struggle more AND have more fun. They just seemed to be playing a more appealing game.

With that background and many other experiences playing golf, I would suggest that "options" are hardly a figment of imagination. They are real and a very important part of the game, but more so for certain players depending on ability.

Over the past few years, I haven't played that much golf. But, I do recall playing to my typical level of about a 7-8 handicap, usually trying to break 80 on descent golf courses and usually hitting that mark plus or minus a few strokes.

To my mind, that is a great level of playing ability. Why? Because such a player is capable of hitting some very good golf shots, but always has to carefully think about the odds of doing so. When planning for each shot I'd always be thinking "I can do this.....but will I.....and what if I don't.....where will my miss leave me……is it worth the risk?".

I believe golf and golf architecture is best when the golfer confronts such questions many times throughout the round, ideally on every shot. Moreover, I believe for good, but not THAT good players “options” are alive and well, thankfully.

I also feel that when you get to the opposite ends of the bell curve of playing ability, “options” may NOT be so prevalent. Beginning and very high handicap players are usually just trying to cleanly strike the ball. Meanwhile, expert level players may frequently see only one choice when playing a shot. Neither level of play is all that interesting, IMO.

There is a link between uncertainty and options. When a player can execute a shot, but really has to weigh the odds of him doing so, the game of golf is at its best. This is one of the reasons the golf technology arms race is hurting competitive golf. The “improved” equipment merely serves to reduce or even eliminate uncertainty for the expert class of player – a big step backwards in terms of making the game interesting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

The challenge, or struggle to play to ones game or better is relative.

Lee Jantzen is probably a + 5 handicap, so 67 would be his game.  The other fellows who you said were 10-12's would be performing far better then their handicaps if they were to break 80.

I've never had a bad or boring time shooting 67.
While I might have fantasized about a few strokes that I could have shaved from my round, I'm sure every other golfer who plays the game goes through the same exercise, thinking, what could have been.

The relative challenge, for each level of golfer shouldn't be equated with options, during the play of their round.

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what practical options exist, on a hole by hole basis, for the higher handicap playing Winged Foot West.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

In case I didn't make it clear, I don't think one needs to take a high handicap player to Winged Foot West to demonstrate that such a player struggles to simply make contact with the golf ball. That could be done at your average muni.

I have had the opportunity - or possibly misfortune - of playing Pine Valley in the company of a man who wasn't even close to a 36 handicap. It was brutal to watch, of course.

But, it did illustrate how "options" aren't very relevant to such a golfer. There was no "uncertainty" for this man. He NEVER hit a descent golf shot. The only question was when the caddy would tell this man it was time to pick up and move on.

As for the relative challenge, I'd also refer you to a golf hole I examined this fall at Canton Brookside with host Dan Belden, a professional level player. If I remember correctly, it was the 5th hole, a mid to long par four with water fronting the green and guarding parts of the left side and a "bail out" area to the right.

Dan advised me where his tee shot would likely come to rest playing from the back tees. He would be left with about 150-170 yards and would most likely just fire right at the pin without much thought at all.

I examined the same shot assuming my tee shot from the regular tees might leave a similiar shot. For me, it wasn't a no brainer. I'd have to more seriously think about how well I was playing and whether I really wanted to fire right at the pin.

In short, for me the hole offered more uncertainty and options than for Dan.

Obviously, every golfer wants to improve his game, but I'm still convinced that at some point - at some level of play - too much uncertainty is taken out of the game and it becomes less interesting.

In the example I described above, I faced a more fun and interesting challenge than Dan.

[ForkaB]

Jim K

I was thinking of holes like Cypress 17 and Dornoch 2 and Olympic 18, where you have virtually no options, if you realistically want to get par. possibly birdie, but have a number of directional and length options if you are happy with bpgie, possible par.  Each of these also offers the VERY distinct possibiltiy of the dreaded "other" if any shot is not hit with a high degree of precision.  In a sense these are "optionless" holes that actually contain a huge number of options--if you are happy with wimping out......

Dan Kelly had a great thread here about a year ago about the creation of uncertainty in the mind of the golfer, particularly on the tee.  Such uncertainty is central to golf, IMO, and has absolutely nothing to do with design "options" but with options in the mind of hte player, as Pat has said in his introduction to this thread.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

Let's say 10 handicap, which is around a quarter of a million folks, which is a lot of anything.

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

Great stuff, concur - just do remove 17 CPC from this.  There most definitely are options on that tee shot:

a) back and left, stay far enough behind trees to go over;
b) bust it long, going past the trees far enough to go around from the left
c) short and right, hugging ocean, into a very small elysian field from which you have a clear shot RIGHT of the trees.

Add all that the mental uncertainty of the ocean on the right, the very difficulty in finding b) or c), the elation/confusion/trepidation that comes from the view and the fact you are on one of the world's great courses (for most people anyway), and well... there are options galore, and uncertainty, on that shot.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Senor Goodale, I beg to differ on 17 at CPC. The option on the tee was put to it's test on my one and only. All my teamates had been there before, not me. They all saw the hole this way. Sacrafice fairway for angle. Being timid, and still uncertain over every swing, my caddie advised me on the safer fairway, way to the left. So, there we sat, me and my caddie directly in the midlle of the fairway and the rest of the entourage(sp?) hugging the rocky coast. Free choice free will implies options.

[TEPaul]

"The relative challenge, for each level of golfer shouldn't be equated with options, during the play of their round."

Patrick:

That's truly an amazingly unthoughtful and uninformed thing to say; people like you tend to think of options/strategies as how a golf course is intended to be played in some certain way--probably some single way made clear by the architect to or for a good player. That's just not true. Any course, for any player, is intended to be played in whatever the best way may be for that player and that's up to each player. And the choices or options he uses do matter--they matter in how well or poorly he performs.

Options are the raw material of any golfer's strategies and there're intelligent options and ones that probably aren't so intelligent for any particular player. These are basically the raw material of risks and rewards for any player and his capabilities---and they are anything but one dimensional and anything but set or even obvious.

Flynn once said;

"...but every course should be so constructed as to afford incnentive to and provide a reward for high class play; and by high-class play is meant, simply the best of which each individual is himself capable."

Obviously someone like you might not think of it but options and strategies for a higher handicap player may simple involve laying up in front of a water hazard and attempting to more conservatively try to put his next close to the pin instead of trying to hit a 3 wood over the hazard and lose more shots than he otherwise would with a more intelligent play.

On most courses there are so many opportunities to use all kinds of options of intelligent thought which create the strategies to do one's best. The other side of that coin on almost every shot is some choice that might more readily involve a far worse outcome.

Those are all options and they make up numerous strategies for all kinds of players of varying abilities. Some seem to forget that whether stroke or match play golf is ultimately a game of numbers and intelligent thought combined with intelligent choices (options) can result in what Flynn referred to as high-class play which again, is the best any individual is himself capable of.

I've had numerous golfers at GMGC say that when the available options and stratetgies of how to play that course (basically to take less risk) was utlimately pointed out to them they are now playing the course much better and more thoughtfully then they ever had before---and some of these people have been playing the course for decades.

Are you going to try to tell me what they are saying is a figment of their imaginations? I sure hope not because what they are doing is understanding all their available options (strategies) better than they ever have before and using them more effectively to do better in the way of scoring better. And all this is apparently giving them more pleasure although some even say they aren't necessarily hitting the ball better, only thinking better and more intelligently.

Why? Because they're beginning to understand how various options make for more effective strategies in the way of minimizing unecessary and unproductive risks and consequently they're doing better. All because of understanding the value of options better.

[ForkaB]

Huck and Adam

I'm a virtual virgin on 17--only played it twice and never caught a sniff of anything but kelp.  1st time semi-shanked my knife to position A (right)--easy wedge-9-iron to the green.  Second time, over shanked it into Mare Pacifica.  Ist round, however, I saw Shivas hit a solid drive left and get completely f****d by the trees, Duran cosy a 3-wood to Position A (middle) from which he made birdie.   I didn't see much room for error there, although I allow that hitting way short of the trees might work for the faint-hearted.  Hey, so that's why Moriarty teed off with his 8-iron!

[THuckaby2]

 

God I hope Dave reads that.

What's interesting about the hole to me is that outside the Moriarty way (way short and left), the shortest shot is the toughest choice - that is, my (c) above is only about 190 or so off the tee... but man you can't hit it 200, or blocked by the trees is your fate, and you can't hit it 180, or one swims with the fishes.  But the little elysian field does exist, and one of my times there I did find it... caddie described it to me, told me to hit a 190 yard cut, and damned if it didn't work.  But 190 yard cut is a pretty normal shot for me, and I was playing well so damn the torpedoes... Thinking back, it is a VERY VERY risky shot, with damn tiny margin of error.  But from that spot, one has about 130 to the green, nothing in the way, straight in, right of the trees.

The bust it long shot ain't easy either, that's for sure... can't go too far or rough and other trees are one's fate on that one too.  Lou's 3wood to get in unblocked shape had to be bit just right.

In any case, I just wanted to point out the options ARE there... Now change this to 18, and you have a better example.  No options there other than two perfect shots.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Let's say 10 handicap, which is around a quarter of a million folks, which is a lot of anything.

You're either dilusional or inexperienced.

I don't know any 10 handicappers who can fire at a pin from
140-150 with the reasonable certainty that they can execute that shot.

Especially, if you factor in, play, when it counts, like a tournament or $,

TRY AGAIN,

I'd say it's on the low side of 4, and probably closer to 0-2, and that's an awfully small number of golfers.

But, if you insist, let's get a random number of 10 handicaps, place them 140-150 yards from a pin positioned behind a hazard and bet on the results of their shots.  I'm willng to spend as much time as you want and bet as much money as you want on the outcome.  And, the 10 handicappers must have money riding with you so that there's a consequence for their success or failure.

[John_Cullum]

David Duval once claimed he would not consider a shot at a difficult hole location from outside 150. With my 4 handicap I wont go unless I'm under 100.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The relative challenge, for each level of golfer shouldn't be equated with options, during the play of their round."

Patrick:

That's truly an amazingly unthoughtful and uninformed thing to say; people like you tend to think of options/strategies as how a golf course is intended to be played in some certain way--probably some single way made clear by the architect to or for a good player. That's just not true.

Yes it is.

Any course, for any player, is intended to be played in whatever the best way may be for that player and that's up to each player.

You're wrong, It's strictly ability related.  
A 36 handicap can't play a hole, such as the 3rd hole at NGLA like a 2 handicap can, he doesn't possess the ability.

And the choices or options he uses do matter--they matter in how well or poorly he performs.

If he can't carry the ball to the green at # 16 at Cypress, he has no option, only wishful thinking

Options are the raw material of any golfer's strategies and there're intelligent options and ones that probably aren't so intelligent for any particular player. These are basically the raw material of risks and rewards for any player and his capabilities---and they are anything but one dimensional and anything but set or even obvious.

They are limited to the players ability to execute, hence the lower handicap player has more options, the very high handicap few if any.

Flynn once said;

"...but every course should be so constructed as to afford incnentive to and provide a reward for high class play; and by high-class play is meant, simply the best of which each individual is himself capable."

Flynn proves my point.
His key phrase is "of which each individual is CAPABLE"
If they are not capable, no option exists.  Options only exist if the ability exists, and when it doesn't, there is no option.

Obviously someone like you might not think of it but options and strategies for a higher handicap player may simple involve laying up in front of a water hazard and attempting to more conservatively try to put his next close to the pin instead of trying to hit a 3 wood over the hazard and lose more shots than he otherwise would with a more intelligent play.

If the golfer doesn't have the ability to carry the water, there is no option, merely an element of denial within the golfer with regard to his abilities.
What if the scenario you present above were off the tee ??
And, how many golf courses have the above configuration ?

On most courses there are so many opportunities to use all kinds of options of intelligent thought which create the strategies to do one's best. The other side of that coin on almost every shot is some choice that might more readily involve a far worse outcome.

Those are all options and they make up numerous strategies for all kinds of players of varying abilities. Some seem to forget that whether stroke or match play golf is ultimately a game of numbers and intelligent thought combined with intelligent choices (options) can result in what Flynn referred to as high-class play which again, is the best any individual is himself capable of.

And, if he's not capable, no option exists.

I've had numerous golfers at GMGC say that when the available options and stratetgies of how to play that course (basically to take less risk) was utlimately pointed out to them they are now playing the course much better and more thoughtfully then they ever had before---and some of these people have been playing the course for decades.

Have you tracked their handicaps ?

Are you going to try to tell me what they are saying is a figment of their imaginations? I sure hope not because what they are doing is understanding all their available options (strategies) better than they ever have before and using them more effectively to do better in the way of scoring better. And all this is apparently giving them more pleasure although some even say they aren't necessarily hitting the ball better, only thinking better and more intelligently.

They can think as intelligently as they are capable of, but if they don't possess the ability to execute the shot, there is no option

Why? Because they're beginning to understand how various options make for more effective strategies in the way of minimizing unecessary and unproductive risks and consequently they're doing better. All because of understanding the value of options better.

You also seem to have this singular sense of strategy, as if their ball comes to rest in an identical spot every time they play golf.

Shall we walk through a round at NGLA for a 30-36 handicap.
I think you'll see that they have a rather specific route to follow, almost to the exclusion of all others

Shivas,

I think we're in sync.

[George Pazin]

I think Dave M covered things rather well, but as usual you high handicapperes who know everything just ignore it when options are offered.

I remember many occasions when it was posited that high handicappers can't understand or appreciate the game of low handicappers and no handicap golfers can understand the game of the pros.

Well, let me educate you guys a bit on high handicappers, since you don't seem to recall what it was like when you were there (however briefly).

There are all kinds of 20-30 handicappers. Some get the ball airborne just fine, but struggle to hit it straight, or at least in a consistent curve. Others are wild and lack good scrambling skills or pick up lots of penalty strokes. Still others hit the ball fairly solidly, but just lack the ability to pitch, chip & putt around and on the greens. I have been through pretty much all of these categories - sometimes I fit all in one round - and I play holes on my home course, which I've played the most, differently all the time. And not just because I hit different tee shots, but often because I chose different options. Sometimes I just make changes depending on which game I brought that day.

Sure, there are plenty of optionless holes out there. But for me optionless tends to mean things like heavy rough and an abundance of water. If there are narrow fairways and/or lots of water, I basically have to resign myself to losing a lot of balls that day. And I might as well hit drivers or 3 woods, because I can be just as wild with 7 iron as a driver. But that doesn't mean I don't make choices.

I could see choosing to play holes like those on The Rawls Course differently all the time.

Thanks low handicappers for thinking so poorly of us high handicappers. You're the ones making golf courses more demanding and less fun.

P.S. Jim Kennedy's brief comment on the second chance options is probably the most insightful on the thread and doesn't sound to me like someone who feels golf is optionless.

The genius of a hole with a variety of options is in the second chance they give when you don't hit it where you planned.

P.P.S. Pat, people lay up on CPC #16 all the time. I think someone famous even implied that if he were leading a tournament by a couple strokes and got to 16 he would seriously consider playing safe if the conditions were at all iffy. A 36 handicapper can surprise you with ways to get around a course. Didn't people crucify Van De Velde for not exercising the option to hit 5 iron, wedge, wedge down the 18th?

P.P.P.S. to Shivas and Rich G - Just because you can make a snap decision doesn't mean it's the right one.

[TEPaul]

"Since you indicate that a TREMENDOUS number of golfers can hit a short iron at a pin, or away from the pin, could you qualify your remark by telling me what handicap players can hit a 7 or 8 iron from 140 - 150 yards at a pin, and execute that shot with reasonable certainty?"

Patrick:

You're the one whose being delusional and inexperienced here with a remark like that! Because a 10 handicapper (later mentioned by MMoore) doesn't pull off that shot as often and as successfully as a scratch player does it make that shot any less of an option for him? An option is simply a choice not some pre-existing success percentage you seem to assume it is!

That's the very thing you need to come to grips with my friend! An intelligent 10 handicapper understands that but it doesn't mean he can't try it--that it's not an option--just that he may not be as successful as often as a scratch player will be with it. Presumably he understands those realities and that that's why he's not a scratch player. It certainly does NOT mean that shot is a figment of his imagination or completely beyond the limits of his abilities. It just isn't as successful as often as a scratch player.

Pat, has anyone mentioned to you lately the reason for the handicap system in golf?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

"Since you indicate that a TREMENDOUS number of golfers can hit a short iron at a pin, or away from the pin, could you qualify your remark by telling me what handicap players can hit a 7 or 8 iron from 140 - 150 yards at a pin, and execute that shot with reasonable certainty?"

Patrick:

You're the one whose being delusional and inexperienced here with a remark like that! Because a 10 handicapper (later mentioned by MMoore) doesn't pull off that shot as often and as successfully as a scratch player does it make that shot any less of an option for him?

Of course it does.
The ability to execute is fundamental to the concept of options.  If you can't execute, you have no viable option.

That's one of the most absurd statements that you've ever made, and you've made a lot of them.

Suddenly, you would have us believe that the ability to execute, and consequences, have no bearing on shot selection

An option is simply a choice not some pre-existing success percentage you seem to assume it is!

As Shivas said, it's not the mental choice, it's the real or practical choice during the play of the round.
Earlier, you mentioned two incidents where your brain conjured up shots that your body couldn't execute, hence, while you thought of them, the option didn't exist in the context of your abilities

That's the very thing you need to come to grips with my friend! An intelligent 10 handicapper understands that but it doesn't mean he can't try it--that it's not an option--just that he may not be as successful as often as a scratch player will be with it. Presumably he understands those realities and that that's why he's not a scratch player. It certainly does NOT mean that shot is a figment of his imagination or completely beyond the limits of his abilities. It just isn't as successful as often as a scratch player.

Of course it's a figment of his imagination, of his aspirations, he can envision it mentally, but he can't execute it, hence the option doesn't exist in practice, or reality, whichever you prefer

Pat, has anyone mentioned to you lately the reason for the handicap system in golf?

It offsets or equalizes disparities in ability

[Dan Grossman]

When I think about holes with "Options," in my mind it means that the hole forces you to make a DECISION.  And the decision really involves around where you want the challenge to be in the hole.  

For example, one of the holes at Hidden Creek (I can't remember the hole #) is a perfect example of this.  On a Par 4, there is a bunker right in the middle of the fairway at the top of the hill where your drive would land.  Should you go in the bunker, it would likely stop you from reaching the green.  However, if you lay up short of the bunker, you have a blind shot, with a short iron, to a undulating green.  It is very important if you want to make birdie, or even par, to place it on the correct part of the green.  So, this hole, in my opinion, gives the golfer the OPTION to either try to execute a difficult drive or a difficult second shot.  Now, assuming that everyone is playing the correct tees, this OPTION should be available to everyone.

Another hole which I liked was #9 at Bucknell Golf Club.  It is a 500 yd. par 5 with water in front of the green and OB left.  To get home in 2, you had to hit a hard draw up and over the hill leaving yourself with a 200yd downhill lie (over water) to hit the green in two.  Or, you could hit 3wd, 5 iron, wedge to the green to try to one putt and make birdie.  On the tee, you had to make a DECISION as to what you wanted to do.

So - I view option holes more as holes that force you to decide where you want to place the challenge in the hole.  If every shot is a challenge (you are a bad golfer), then, in my opinion, it is tough to really understand the strategy of a golf course.

EDIT - I just read Shivas' post above and I think he is spot on.  Option holes for the decent, but fearful golfers, allow us which shot to get nervous over (above).  If it is a blind wedge, then hit it over the bunker.  If it is a 100yd wedge, then go for the green in two.  Being forced to hit a perfect shot everytime is no fun, but having a CHOICE on where to hit a perfect shot, is lots of fun.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Grossman,

I think you're referencing the 8th hole at Hidden Creek, with an extremely wide fairway, that plays in the 280 to 280+ range from the back tee.  There was no decison for me, I drove the green.   The fellows I played with 13, and 16 handicappers didn't seem to ponder any options and hit drivers off the tee.

Isn't the decision to hit the shot predetermined by your ability to execute it ?

[Dan Grossman]

You are right about #8 Pat, but I remember the hole being more along the lines of 300+ yds.  There were 4 of us (all sub 10 handicappers) and we had a discussion of what to do off the tee.  Two of us hit 2 iron short, one guy hit driver left and another guy hit it in the bunker.  The conditions of the course may have played a role because it was really WET that day.  So, you couldn't have gotten to the green if you had carried the bunker.  

I think this point about the differences in our opinion of the hole makes the point that an architect can't build the perfect hole.  Because of the differences in all of our games, each of us is going to find an "option" hole better or worse depending on how it challenges us.  But, you still have to be able to hit the golf ball well.

[A_Clay_Man]

Throw in the Ideal maintenance meld and the number of times an intelligent player would aim for the flag, would be significantly diminished.

Rihc- I was privy to a Tiger story when on the 17th tee at CPC a few years back. He was 'as giddy as a little girl' and probably hit a small bucket trying to drive the green on a fly. There's another option. I did leave off the double Hail Irwin story, which I assume you recall.

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

How do you define "ability to execute"? Do you some sort of percentage in mind, or are you saying something is literally impossible?

My index is somewhere in the 23s right now and, because I have barely played or practiced at at all in the last two years, I struggle to play to it. But I guarantee you that I can hit enough shots to consider something an option. I have hit intentional fades and draws on occasion - I don't often pull it off, that's a big part of why I'm a high handicapper, but I pull it off just often enough to try it occasionally, if I don't see the penalty as being that bad. Same thing with long "forced" carries.

You bring out this topic every now & then and I am frankly somewhat confused as to your final point. If you are saying that someone who cannot consistently or even occasionally hit the ball airborne will struggle on many, most or even all golf holes, well, congratulations on that startling revelation.

By the way, if you are hitting consistent grounders, you are probably not a 36, you're probably an outright beginner who doesn't belong on a real golf course - you should either be on the range, a pitch and putt or at most an executive 9 holer.

Dave M & I explained how we choose different options. You dismiss this. Do you really need me to bore the hell out of everyone on this site by going through shot by shot one of my rounds so I can explain to you what options I consider & why I made the choice I did?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()