Options, are they figments of your imagination and limited by your abilities ?

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
There is at least one place on a golf course where true options can exist for all levels of player, and where players will occasionally decide to play shots beyond the range of their ability, with no fear of losing a ball--the area around the green (say within 40 yards or so) where recovery shots are played.

On course like Pinehurst #2, Royal Melbourne, The Old Course, etc., a world-class player really has to think about what type of recovery shot to play: running chip, flop, spinning chip, putt, etc. The high handicapper, meanwhile, generally has many of those same options. And many times both classes of player will choose wrong and maybe (especially the high-handicapper) try a high-risk, high-precision shot that he can't pull off.

If you can't execute, you have no viable option.

This is a reasonable statement in theory but I have seen it disproved many, many times. It is the player's perception of his abilities that determines what options he has, not his actual abilities. If a player thinks he can pull the shot off, even once in a hundred tries, it becomes an option (although if they care about their score, maybe it shouldn't!). I've seen countless players attempt shots that were beyond their abilities, but they thought that it just might be possible, or maybe they were pissed off or had given up on their round, or maybe they were playing match play and had to try something bold, or whatever...

So just because a player can't produce a certain shot doesn't mean that the shot isn't an option...he might just get tempted to try a shot he realistically can't pull off.

[George Pazin]

Terrific post, ChrisB.

[JakaB]

I like when there aren't any trees on the left side of the fairway so I can step in the bucket and hit a power banana.  Just one tree a hundred yards out and twenty yards left will leave me the option of hitting a four iron to keep the ball in play....trees can be the option enablers of the bucket steppers.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shavis:

Nice to hear I may have "nailed" something. Too bad it doesn't happen more often while swinging a golf club!

My "civilized" version of your theory about golf being better when you suck - golf is better when you aren't that good - is something I've been thinking about for some time now.

I don't think I'd enjoy having no ability. But, equally the uncertainty of whether or not I'm going to do what I am capable of really makes the game, IMO.

Watching Janzen in the round I described really convinced me the professional level player truly is playing an INFERIOR game. His margin of error was just way too small to create any real interest. Way too boring.

The only way we can make professional golf interesting again is to take them back to equipment circa 1980 or earlier.

Options are alive and well for the 10 ish handicap. For the pros, equipment "improvements" have distorted the necessary balance between player ability and the configuration of the playing field.

[George Pazin]

Ah, the old "tree falls in the forest" argument...

Just because that idiot does not ever even consider using the option does not mean it's not there. There are other folks who will and there are other occasions (money or pride on the line) that might prompt even the idiot to use it.

[A_Clay_Man]

I think a great architect allows for as many as options is possible for all the different situations available. Doak recently commented on how he likes to provide the ability to recover, or to reach one of his greens, for the higher handcpr who will have a greater distance to reach. If it's all carry all the time that sucks, just as all bowling all the time would, too.

[Jeff Goldman]

Further to Chris' excellent post, everyone seems to be considering either the "strong" player, who can do what he wants and has options, vs. the "weak" player, who can't do anything and should hit his putter off the tee.  What about the vast majority of mediocre players, who can "sometimes" execute the shot?  They often have options.  Look at no. 10 at Whistling Straits, a short par-4 with a bunker in the fairway.  I think a mediocre golfer has the following choices:  (1) Try to hit a good drive over the bunker in the middle of the fairway, and have an easier second shot that he can basically roll up to the green for a good chance at par; (2) bunt it out safely short of the bunker and have a blind, difficult second shot of 165-175 yards; (3) hit a fairway wood at the bunker and assume his usual slice or hook will carry it sideways for a second shot between 1 and 2 in difficulty.  

Now, he has to calculate the chances of a successful shot under each of these options, and decide which to take.  If he thinks the chance of a decent drive are 2 out of 6, and of a successful short bunt are 4 of 6, he has a choice (or perceives that he does).  On the other hand, if he's driving the ball well that day, but his longer fairway shots aren't good, he may calculate his options differently.  All of this is because of that little pot bunker in the fairway, and it is hard to see how these are not the kind of options Pete Dye (and the other great architects) were thinking of.

Jeff Goldman

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Do you anticipate that one morning you will wake up and go to plan B or will it be a gradual process where you will experiment between agressive and less agressive options?

Most 10 handicappers I know are relatively good ball strikers. An agressive approach from 140-150 yards would not be suprising at all...in fact one of the reasons many 10 handicappers are 10 handicappers is because they are often too agressive (that & a poor short game).

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

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

You'll have to figure that out for yourself, it seems self evident to me.

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.

If you don't often pull it off, then your deluding yourself into thinking that you have the ability to execute it, when you don't.  Hence, in reality the option is more imaginative then realistic.  I would suggest that your abilitiy to manage the golf course be tempered by your ability to execute what which is within your capabilities

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?

Would you say, that if I could drop a ball next to your ball, on every shot, that I would have more options of play then you do, and that Ernie Els, engaging in the same exercise would have more options then I do ?

[TEPaul]

"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."

Patrick:

I always knew you were wrong a good deal but this takes the cake. The ability to execute is fundamental to the concept of options but the ability to execute successfully is also RELATIVE and that's what handicaps are all about Pat!

Look at it this way. A scratch player may expect to successfully execute a 140-150 yard shot over a bunker 9 out of 10 times (for instance) and a 40 handicapper may expect to execute that shot successfully perhaps once out of only 10 or even 20 attempts--but the fact is it's possible for him to do it and that's precisely WHY it's a valid option to him and that's also precisely why he IS a 40 handicapper which compensates for his lack of ability to execute as often as a scratch player!!

You're saying it's a figament of his imagination which it most certainly IS NOT if he can do it even once in 10 or 20 attempts. Frankly that single successful attempt at that option is probably a lot of what brings him back to golf and creates that exciting allure of it for him!!

And that's also why handicapping in golf is so necessary and effective in accomodating so many levels of players competing together.

Although limited ability certainly effects successful execution of various options it does not make options figaments of handicappers imagination and the handicap system takes fairly good care of that----or haven't you noticed that too all these years?

[George Pazin]

Sure you have more options than me & Ernie has more than you - that's your point?

 

As I said before, I generally only try something out of my comfort zone if there is no significant penalty. If I had significant money on the line, I'd probably play even more conservative, if that option is available. Certainly there are hit and hope holes, and there are a whole helluva lot more of those for me than you or Ernie, but that still doesn't mean that there are no options and that every shot is cut and dried.

I might also try it if there is only significant penalty. What do I have to lose?

One of the few "flaws" I felt Black Mesa had was that the safe plays were not that much safer than the aggressive plays - hence, you might as well go for it.

[DMoriarty]

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.

I am talking about options, as in distinct lines of play, with each option having a different margin of error.  

"Capable of executing different shots?"  Capability is a slippery slope in both directions-- the most capable golfers sometimes dont execute shots;  conversely, the least capable golfers sometimes hit shots which push the limits of their capabilities.   The trick for both is to decide when and where to try to push their capabilities-- to take a chance, to challenge a bunker, to aim for the pin; to lay up; etc.  

Even with my currently miserable game, not many options have been taken away from me, I have just had to re-evaluate my options based on different information.  I certainly still have some "capability" to hit the shots I passed up this weekend.  Instead I I chose to take different lines with wider margins of error, because under the circumstances I thought it best.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B

There is at least one place on a golf course where true options can exist for all levels of player, and where players will occasionally decide to play shots beyond the range of their ability, with no fear of losing a ball--the area around the green (say within 40 yards or so) where recovery shots are played.

I don't consider putting from the fringe or chipping from the fringe or pitching from the fringe as options, in the architectural sense.  It's more shot preference borne of familiarity

On course like Pinehurst #2, Royal Melbourne, The Old Course, etc., a world-class player really has to think about what type of recovery shot to play: running chip, flop, spinning chip, putt, etc. The high handicapper, meanwhile, generally has many of those same options. And many times both classes of player will choose wrong and maybe (especially the high-handicapper) try a high-risk, high-precision shot that he can't pull off.

Most high handicapper don't have the option to play all 14 clubs in their bag, because they don't have the talent, experience and confidence.  Most choose the shot they're most comfortable with, rather then a variety of shots that is available to them.

If you can't execute, you have no viable option.

This is a reasonable statement in theory but I have seen it disproved many, many times. It is the player's perception of his abilities that determines what options he has, not his actual abilities. If a player thinks he can pull the shot off, even once in a hundred tries, it becomes an option (although if they care about their score, maybe it shouldn't!). I've seen countless players attempt shots that were beyond their abilities, but they thought that it just might be possible, or maybe they were pissed off or had given up on their round, or maybe they were playing match play and had to try something bold, or whatever...

We disagree.  Pulling off a shot one in a hundred times doesn't make that shot a viable option.  Ask yourself, if I bet
$ 10,000 dollars on that shot, would the golfer take the bet that he could hit that 1 in 100 shot when it meant something substantial ?

I think you also have to look at the situation in the context that the player playing a round of golf and is trying to play and score as best he can.
Golf is still about getting the ball into the hole in the fewest strokes possible.

So just because a player can't produce a certain shot doesn't mean that the shot isn't an option...he might just get tempted to try a shot he realistically can't pull off.

Of course it's not an option.   If you can't execute the shot, no option exists.  An option, by definition connotes a reasonable ability to succeed with your choice, and if you have no, or an infinitesimal chance of succeeding, no viable option exists.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Do you anticipate that one morning you will wake up and go to plan B or will it be a gradual process where you will experiment between agressive and less agressive options?

I don't know that you can predict the transition of your play, but it probably is a combination of a realistic assessment of your abilities, and your cognitive powers.

Today, there are many shots that I would no longer attempt because I know I can't execute them.

On the other hand, I've always been an aggresive player and prone to try shots that might be a cut above my abilities.
In this regard, concentration, determination and a superior ability to recover via a lob wedge were factors.  But, when playing in an important match, or tournament, those choices may have been eliminated.

Most 10 handicappers I know are relatively good ball strikers. An agressive approach from 140-150 yards would not be suprising at all...in fact one of the reasons many 10 handicappers are 10 handicappers is because they are often too agressive (that & a poor short game).

I don't think you can broad brush why 10 handicappers are 10 handicappers, it's too complex of an exercise.
Some might strike the ball like a 15 but putt and chip like a 5, conversely some may hit the ball like a 5 but putt and chip like a 15.

But, I would be willing to offer you the same bet I offered Michael Moore.

I think the ability to fire at a pin from 140-150 yards, behind a hazard, with a reasonable chance of success, resides within the ability of a handicap much lower then 10.
[/b]

[A_Clay_Man]

Thats a pretty generous definition of an option, Pat.

I'd say it's more of a 20-1 shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

Sure you have more options than me & Ernie has more than you - that's your point?

Reread the opening post

As I said before, I generally only try something out of my comfort zone if there is no significant penalty.

As a 23 handicap, your comfort zone has to be rather limited or narrow.

If I had significant money on the line, I'd probably play even more conservative, if that option is available. Certainly there are hit and hope holes, and there are a whole helluva lot more of those for me than you or Ernie, but that still doesn't mean that there are no options and that every shot is cut and dried.

Tell me, on the first tee of a golf course, 40 yard wide fairway, straightaway par 4 or par 5,  what are your options ?

I might also try it if there is only significant penalty. What do I have to lose?

If you have nothing to lose, no option exists

One of the few "flaws" I felt Black Mesa had was that the safe plays were not that much safer than the aggressive plays - hence, you might as well go for it.

If there's no differentiation between success and failure, then no option exists

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

Thats a pretty generous definition of an option, Pat.

I'd say it's more of a 20-1 shot.

So we can put to rest some of the absurd contentions, let's look at options, and numerical relativity in more clearly defined terms.

If you had a life threatening illness, and the doctors told you that if you treat it with protocol A, there was a 1 in 20 chance that you would live, and that if you treated it with protocol B there was a 19 in 20 chance that you'll live, is choice A a realistic option ?

So let's stop all the theory nonsense, the mental mastubation and talk realistically about playing a golf hole, and what viable options are realistically available to the LOW and HIGH handicapper.

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
I think your competitive stripes are showing, and that your experience as a primarily competitive golfer is painting your view on this one.

You equate golf shots to things like betting $10000 dollars on a shot or having a life-threatening illness, but the fact is that not all golfers are that emotionally tied to their score, especially the vast number of recreational golfers who don't compete. Hitting a golf shot is just not that important for a great number of golfers.

If it were, then you'd be right, and experimentation, options and the rest would go out the window.

Of course if the stakes go high enough, the player will discard all options but the one he is most comfortable with. If I have a one-shot lead on the 18th at Augusta National, that would not be the time I would explore the option of the low running draw up the front-right opening of the green. I think I'd go with my bread-and-butter shot, the one I have the best chance of pulling off.

But even though you may carry the mentality of fighting for every shot and shooting the lowest you can every round, many golfers don't. Heck, many PGA Tour players don't.

You said it yourself:

On the other hand, I've always been an aggresive player and prone to try shots that might be a cut above my abilities.
In this regard, concentration, determination and a superior ability to recover via a lob wedge were factors.  But, when playing in an important match, or tournament, those choices may have been eliminated.

It appears to me that as the stakes get higher, you become more reluctant to consider different options of play, which I can agree is a tendency of many golfers. But you can't extend that to everyone else, because the fact is that many golfers (especially those who don't compete) just don't play golf that way. They'll continue to take the same risks, to try shots beyond their abilities, exercise their perceived options.

You said:

An option, by definition connotes a reasonable ability to succeed with your choice, and if you have no, or an infinitesimal chance of succeeding, no viable option exists.

If this is true, then how do you explain the multitude of golfers (including yourself, from the quote above) who attempt shots beyond the range of their abilities? What are they doing, if not exercising an option? Are you going to go up to the guy who just chose a shot he couldn't pull off and say, "That wasn't an option!" Well, obviously it was--he just took it!

[George Pazin]

I'm still at a loss as to your point.

Let's stop talking theory, it's all mental masturbation and let's realistically try to describe the options for low and high handicappers?

 

I play in a scramble once a year with my father in law & his buddies. These guys are definitely not low handicappers, we're lucky if we finish a couple under par on an easy course. We frequently choose different ways to attack holes. Safe, aggressive, high, low. Do these options not exist? They do on this course, it's pretty open without a lot of hazards fronting greens.

I frequently play differently depending on whom I'm playing with. If I'm out on my own, I'm more likely to play aggressive and try interesting shots, because they're more fun when I do pull them off. When I play with others on new courses where I'm less familiar with them and the course, I'll frequently play much more conservatively, trying to keep the ball in play. Does this mean these options don't exist because I am playing under a slightly different mindset?

How in God's name can you compare medical treatment options where the consequences are life or death with golf, where the consequences of a misplay may be a single stroke? That is a horrendous anaolgy.

There are option filled holes and option limited holes. There are more option filled holes for better golfers and more option limited holes for lesser golfers. No kidding!?!?

That does not translate to options being the figments of one's imagination.

[A_Clay_Man]

George- You know as well as I do that the 19 out of 20 "live" analogy usually involves a quality of life which makes the 20-1 shot attractive.

Tom-I'm so glad you said what you said. I had a whole post written up about specific holes, the ones I mentioned early on in this thread, but was ignored. I deleted it and then went out for a smoke. As I sucked on my coffin nail, I wondered if it would ever be possible to explain the intangibles to a Pat Mucci type. Recalling the Garden City thread where he castigated the entire website for not participating on a simple question. Then as the responses came in and further analysis was put forth, the conclusions couldn't sway even the smallest pebble in Pat's concrete. My thoughts have turned into posting a picture or using the keyboard to diagram me, throwing my hands in the air.

Other than the contrarian newish scot, has Pat succeded in convincing anyone he's right?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Like I said many 10 handicappers are 10's because they take the agressive option. Not successfully executing the option on a regualr basis is one thing....they still have the option and excerize it at their own risk/reward. And perhaps one out of ten is enough reward...its all relative.

No matter what your skill level...you are faced with options...it may not be the same options as the scratch man, but they are options. And as others have successfully argued, there is a difference between making the prudent option or even executing an option and not having options--which is what you were driving at.

[JakaB]

I knew Pat was right before he ever started....my position that one tree in the left rough is an option enabler for the bucket steppers was sarcastic.  But this is not a linear postion..I have more options than both George Pavin and Ernie Els...George can't hit it and Ernie don't need it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

ChrisB,

I think your competitive stripes are showing, and that your experience as a primarily competitive golfer is painting your view on this one.

You equate golf shots to things like betting $10000 dollars on a shot or having a life-threatening illness, but the fact is that not all golfers are that emotionally tied to their score, especially the vast number of recreational golfers who don't compete. Hitting a golf shot is just not that important for a great number of golfers.

I've seen golfers throw clubs, rant & rave, become surly with their friends, and abrupt with their wives and children.
As someone once said, "golf is not a life and death matter, it's more important then that."

I've also never seen a golfer enjoy the shanks, four putting and other various evils.  Most golfers I've observed in the limited time I've spent on golf courses are serious about their game and each shot they play.

If it were, then you'd be right, and experimentation, options and the rest would go out the window.

Of course if the stakes go high enough, the player will discard all options but the one he is most comfortable with. If I have a one-shot lead on the 18th at Augusta National, that would not be the time I would explore the option of the low running draw up the front-right opening of the green. I think I'd go with my bread-and-butter shot, the one I have the best chance of pulling off.

But even though you may carry the mentality of fighting for every shot and shooting the lowest you can every round, many golfers don't. Heck, many PGA Tour players don't.

I would disagree with the above statement.  I think most golfers want to hit the best shots and shoot the lowest score they can on any given day.

You said it yourself:

On the other hand, I've always been an aggresive player and prone to try shots that might be a cut above my abilities.
In this regard, concentration, determination and a superior ability to recover via a lob wedge were factors.  But, when playing in an important match, or tournament, those choices may have been eliminated.

It appears to me that as the stakes get higher, you become more reluctant to consider different options of play, which I can agree is a tendency of many golfers. But you can't extend that to everyone else, because the fact is that many golfers (especially those who don't compete) just don't play golf that way.

I disagree with this, every golfer competes against the golf course if they're keeping score, and if they're not keeping score, they are not playing golf.

They'll continue to take the same risks, to try shots beyond their abilities, exercise their perceived options.

When you don't count your strokes, and try wild shots, you're not playing golf

You said:

An option, by definition connotes a reasonable ability to succeed with your choice, and if you have no, or an infinitesimal chance of succeeding, no viable option exists.

If this is true, then how do you explain the multitude of golfers (including yourself, from the quote above) who attempt shots beyond the range of their abilities?

They are morons
If you read my quote carefully, you would have seen that I used the term "might", and I also alluded to my "superior" ability to recover, and the two are inextricably entwined.
Without that superior ability, the option wouldn't exist.

What are they doing, if not exercising an option? Are you going to go up to the guy who just chose a shot he couldn't pull off and say, "That wasn't an option!" Well, obviously it was--he just took it!

Because he chose to attempt a shot beyond his ability to execute doesn't mean it was a viable option.  It was a terrible choice.   Didn't "Tin Cup" teach you anything ??

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Whoops, sorry, I deleted my post #70 as it just seemed like it was exacerbating a pointless discussion over a pointless premise on Pat's part. It was to me a bit like some of Rich's posts which are along the lines of "golf architecture is absurd" and then asking most of us to prove him wrong---to me that's becoming pointless!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Like I said many 10 handicappers are 10's because they take the agressive option. Not successfully executing the option on a regualr basis is one thing....they still have the option and excerize it at their own risk/reward. And perhaps one out of ten is enough reward...its all relative.

There has to be a reasonable chance to properly execute the shot if it's to be an option, and I don't consider a 10 % chance to be good odds or a reasonable chance.
I certainly don't think that that percentage would cause one to risk the shot, if the outcome of the shot has any meaningful significance

No matter what your skill level...you are faced with options...it may not be the same options as the scratch man, but they are options. And as others have successfully argued, there is a difference between making the prudent option or even executing an option and not having options--which is what you were driving at.

Does the 36 handicap really have viable options ?
    Does the 24 handicap have considerably more options ?

I think viable options are within the single digit handicapper's play and increase as the handicap nears zero.