[Steve Lang]

 

Saturday i hit driver on two par threes (170 and 190 yds),  kept 2 of 3 wedges in the trunk and hit putter in from 50 yards or less to watch rolls and bounces.  Imagination and reality ultimately collided on the 9th hole when I set up a 40 yard putter approach and one putted for par.

Now,.. figments or not,.. are not options the essence of the game?  

Are not challenges the spirit of the game?  

Are not confronting ones' fear and loathing the psych of the game?  

Are not approaching personal limits and trying to exceed them the goal and life analogy of never up never in?  

Why then would anyone confuse these things or belabor their obvious interactions?  

I say go for it and be forewarned.  Let your conscience be your guide and enjoy as much as you can, the journey or the prize or both.

[ForkaB]

Jim K

What I was saying re: 14 TOC was that any hole that is wide and strewn with hazards has many "options", de facto.  I was also trying to say that virtually all of those "options", i.e. slice it OB, hit 7 iron off the tee into the Beardies, drive 45 degrees left and play up the 5th fairway, etc. etc. are really either fanstasies or the unintended consequences of taking one of the very small number of real options and executing poorly.

It seems to me that many people on this thread are mistaking consequences for options.  Just because it is possible to play golf shots into and out of numerous places on a golf hole, does not mean that it is a realistic "option" to play to there.  I can (and far too often have!) played the short narrow fairwayed 1st at Dornoch from deep into the left rough behind the high plateau that used to be the 1st green, and from a required drop off the 18th green to the far right.  I assure you that shots from both positions are thirlling and require both skill and luck to execute properly, but getting to those positions in the first place was NOT an "option" I was planning whilst on that tee!

By the "consequences" definition of "options" every golf hole has a multiudes of "options" from every possible shot location.  If you doubt this, go follow a 36 handicapper around any course and see what creative "options" he has has to play.  One of the cruelties of golf (as Pat notes wisely) is that the better the player the more options he or she has, on every shot, but the less likelihood that he or whe will ever use them, as there is usuually only one optimal way of playing any shot, for the one who has the skill to be able to play the shot in more than one way.

Just to show I am not BIASED, however, I must strongly disagree with Pat on his statement:

"You can't seriously think that a 1 in 100 chance constitutes a viable option, or that any architect intended to tempt someone with features that present those odds."

Pat, when on the tee of a short hole, or with a short-mid iron in their hand for an approach, many golfers I know actually choose the option of trying to hit the ball into the hole.  Sure, their chance of success is fairly limited, but if you don't choose to try to get eagles on a golf course, aren't you forever condemened to flying with the turkeys?

[DMoriarty]

Dave, why in the world would a weak player flirt with OB?

He probably wouldnt on his drive, at least not on purpose.  But at some point, after one or two shots, he has to decide whether to attack the green over the bunker, or play well left and come at the green from a more forgiving angle left of the green.   He also has a choice on the tee of whether to try to play the hole as a two, three, or four shot hole.    

See the yellow line who plays short down the middle for two shots, then chooses whether to hit over the bunker or whether to hit it left.  He also could have chosen to try to hit  it left on his second shot.  

BTW, if this diagram is to scale (and it better be, since it's a photo), you have the red player hitting his drive 255-260.

The red line is a defined as the line of a "decent player" not a complete hack.  But go ahead and drop 20-30 yds off his tee shot and his options are the same, with the addition of considering whether to go way left on his second.  

[I figured it would bother someone that the good player was only outdriving the decent player by 20-30 yds.  We all know that distance is so important that the longer better player should get a 50-70 yd advantage on every hole!]

What are the weak player's options, other than don't hit it OB, and make solid contact twice and hit it down the gut, so he's got a decent shot at getting up and down for 4?  

Well as I said above, the weak player might not face the choice of whether to play left until his second or third shot.  If he wants to get up and down for 4 he had better at least try to drive to the left half of the fairway, so he doesnt have to challenge the bunker and slope head on.  

You good players only consider the options you face, and disregard the options a hack faces.  

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick Mucci,

I agree with the others who think you are all wet on this one.  You seriously are saying that something you have only a 1 in 10 chance of doing isn't an option?  The option exists if the golfer can bring it into consideration.  While I might not try a 1 in 10 shot to reach the green of a par 5 in two on the final hole of a match if I'm one up and my opponent has already hit into the water and can only get a lucky par at best, it sure seems reasonable if I'm one down and my opponent has already laid up into perfect position for an easy par and possible birdie.

During a normal round?  Well, whether I'll try it or not depends on the consequences of failure, as well as the chances of success (and rewards for such) on the other available options.  If I have a 1 in 10 chance of hitting a green on a par 5 but am left in a deep bunker otherwise, versus a lay up with water on one side and OB on the other, I may be more apt to take my chances with the 1 in 10 shot versus someone who is very straight and completely unconcerned about the water and OB but a terrible sand player.

A given hole presents options to players depending on their skill.  It is up to their course management skills and evaluation of their abilities how to weigh those options.  There are no options in the game for a golfer who always plays the most aggressive way possible, whether that is 1997's Tiger using driver on every tee and firing at every pin or a 25 handicap who determines his strategy by asking himself "what would Tiger do here?"

There are plenty of options for guys like me and Shivas who can hit a few pro quality shots followed up by a few 25 handicap quality shots.  There are plenty of options for a 25 handicap who thinks about his shots within his abilities and might decide to lay up when confronted with a stream that requires a 200 yard carry because he knows that would require he hit a perfect shot but gives it a go when it is only 180 -- even though his odds of hitting it square and straight enough to make that 180 carry are still worse than 1 in 10.

[DMoriarty]

You stated that you were in a slump, which you indicated means that your ball striking is not up to your usual standards, thus you've chosen a different course of play.

Hence, your current ability offers you less playing latitude.
Absent the slump, you are capable of executing shots that you choose not to attempt in your current state.

I see no conflict.

Funny you used the phrases "you've chosen" and "you choose" to argue that I have no options.  What are options if not choices?  

"Less playing latitude?"  Not in any realistic sense.  As certain options become less favorable, other options become more favorable.  For example, I suppose the good player could choose to play a medium length par 4 as a three shot hole, but under normal conditions, this is not a realistic option any more than it's a realistic option for me to try and carry a drive 300 yds.

The lines are not hypothetical.  Real golfers have chosen these lines.  The white line was me on Sunday, where I intentionally hit well left of the green from a bad angle.  The yellow line represents the play of a friend of mine, the second time in his life he played on a real course.  I explained the layout of the hole and he concluded before his third shot, "so I should try to hit it left of the green."   These are bad players making strategic decisions based on relative risk and reward.  

When the high handicapper gets up on the tee and slices one out of bounds, show me the options he had.

Well he had the same options that he currently has, since he is still hitting off the tee.  You are denying the existence of his game plan, just because it failed.  This is the problem with your backwards analysis.  In essence you are saying:  'There was only one outcome of that last shot, therefore there were no options.'  Analyze the options before the shot, and you might get a different result.

Anyone can draw lines, but, can a golfer hit the ball where he intends, with any degree of certainty.  I say NO, except for the LOW handicappers.

You and Matt Ward and your "degree of certainty."  This is where the RISK portion of the relative risk reward calculation comes into play.  The risk reward calculations are certainly different for the better player and the high handicapper, but both have to negotiate there way around the golf course.   For example on the diagram, the high handicapper may try to hit two six irons down the safe side, then an 8 iron well left of the green, then try to putt it from 40 yds.  This might maximize the "degree of certainty" that he will finish the hole with one ball.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

Were you keeping score or just diddling around, experimenting ?

Doug Siebert,

Well, numerically, maybe 1 in 10 does constitute an option, but 1 in 100 sure doesn't.  And, if the consequences for failure to execute were dire in the 1 in 10 example, then I'd say that's not a viable option either.

DMoriarty,

I'm not familiar with the hole you cite, but, let's move the discussion to a golf course that I think we're both familiar with, NGLA.

Off the tee, what option does a 30-36 handicapper have on each and every hole ?

I maintain, NONE, that there is but one route of play for them.

What you and others are missing, and in denial about, is that options are limited by one's ability, and increase as a players handicap gets lower.

With respect to a game plan, Mike Tyson said, "everybody has a game plan, until they get hit."  It's one thing to stand on a tee, and intend to hit in a specific direction, it's quite another to execute that game plan, and precise execution is strictly the domain of the LOW handicap.

Rich Goodale,

I don't konw that a high handicap, hitting a mid iron to a par three is aiming for a 4 1/4 inch hole, rather then a 4,000 square foot green.

It's sort of like the argument you get from golfers at country clubs who want colored flags or diagrams to show them where the hole location is.  These are people approaching the green from 180-220 yards who would get the thrill of their life if they could just hit or come close to the green, but from watching to much TV feel that it's important that they know the precise location of the hole.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jim K

What I was saying re: 14 TOC was that any hole that is wide and strewn with hazards has many "options", de facto.  I was also trying to say that virtually all of those "options", i.e. slice it OB, hit 7 iron off the tee into the Beardies, drive 45 degrees left and play up the 5th fairway, etc. etc. are really either fanstasies or the unintended consequences of taking one of the very small number of real options and executing poorly.
 
One of the cruelties of golf (as Pat notes wisely) is that the better the player the more options he or she has, on every shot, but the less likelihood that he or whe will ever use them, as there is usuually only one optimal way of playing any shot, for the one who has the skill to be able to play the shot in more than one way.

Rihc- In Dr. Klein's "Rough Meditations" he describes a situation on the 14th hole as he was caddying. His player was of quality but due to the conditions and the position the players ball, Brad had to think long and hard on where to advise this guy on his second.  He advised him to play towards the 5th teeing ground. The player chose to challenge "Hell" and was suitably humbled. Now maybe it was writing, but it sure as shit seemed to me that his advice was sage, and the players ability precluded him from "playing safe".

In your second point, couldn't it be argued that the better player is the one with less options because he there is only  one true perfect shot. Which is the one he defaults to because after all, he is soooo good?

I once was caught up to a nice lady on about the 11th hole at Las Campanas. She was not a big striker of the ball and on the very next hole she was faced with something like 210 to the hole with a 185 carry over the arroyo. She had played the hole up the right which ultimately was gonna force her to have to make the long carry. (The entire left side boomeranged) There was tree in her line but it was short in stature. SHe felt should could've tried her 3 wood but it's low flight would hit the tree. I advised her to hit her 5 wood in order to miss the tree. The likelyhood she'd come up short and have to chip and put. This lovely little woman did something I never ever would've thought of, she putted her ball about 12 yards in the fairway, closer to the edge of the arroyo. From 210, she putted it 12 yards! Now that is an option !

This whole stubborn semantical argument of Pat's has made me think golf has been wasted on the better player.

[ForkaB]

Adam

I think your example proves Pat's point--Brad's loop had the options of either taking on "Hell" or playing safe to the left BECAUSE he was "of quality."  The average player would only have had the option of playing safe.

Vis a vis the old lady, there is a similar story about Paul Runyan (ex-PGA Champion) who used to play even the old back tee on the 18th at Merion by chipping down to the ladie's tee because he couldn't be sure of making the 210-220 carry.

Vis a vis your final statement, I do not think there is a single golfer in the world that really would not prefer to be a better player than he or she actually is, precisely because being better not only gives one more satisfaction, but it also gives one more options and more insight into the incredible richness of this, our game.

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- Perhaps it really is semantical, because in the 14th hole example, the avewrage player has many more optons, on where to play safe, than Brad's loop. I see it as we are all handcuffed by our abilities, with the options stemming from a creative imagination after an evaluation of the circumstance.

On the last point, I wasn't refering to getting better, I was refering to a large number (not all) of good golfer's, who appear to miss the intangables, the essence. I suspect it's primarily due to a subjective focus on results.

[TEPaul]

"This whole stubborn semantical argument of Pat's has made me think golf has been wasted on the better player."

Adam:

You should never think that! After about five pages on this thread it appears Pat Mucci is now trying to say that various handicap golfers do not realistically have the same viable options as does a scratch player, for instance!

Duh! Do we really need to have Pat Mucci tell all of us something that obvious? Do I, as a low handicapper have the same available options throughout a round that Tiger Woods has? Does Pat Mucci? Of course not! So what? I have plenty of my own that Woods may never need to consider!

I'm not certain what Rich Goodale is trying to say about "consequences" versus "options" but unintended consequences of some shots have the potential to create all kinds of interesting "options" on shots to follow on a good golf course designed to offer them.

Perhaps Rich and Pat haven't considered the entire realm of the glorified recovery shot in golf as option oriented. One might consider that to be more the realm of the higher handicapper or less skilled golfer but it certainly can have exciting and interesting options!

Many of the best of the old architects spoke about options in the context of creating thoughtful problems and solutions for most golfers. Many of them also said it wasn't particularly necessary to create problems for the high handicapper simply because his game was "problem" enough for him. But, recognizing that, those old architects did consider that they should continuously offer the high handicapper "solutions" so that he could proceed and obviously that could mean conservatively or heroically!

Should the latter be considered options? Of course it should! What Pat Mucci appears to be trying to prove here is only that some handicap golfers do not have the SAME viable options as the better stronger player but again, that's completely obvious to all who play golf.

As you said above, Adam, I've noticed through the years some of the choices and options of women golfers and higher handicappers are some of the most interesting I've ever seen--and they certainly are meaningful to them. It puts me in mind of the admiration Bobby Jones once expressed for a way that Joyce Wethered chose to continuously play a hole at TOC. It impressed Jones tremendously as he'd never noticed it and he had high praise for both Wethered and TOC because of it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

"This whole stubborn semantical argument of Pat's has made me think golf has been wasted on the better player."

Adam:

You should never think that! After about five pages on this thread it appears Pat Mucci is now trying to say that various handicap golfers do not realistically have the same viable options as does a scratch player, for instance!

It took you five pages to figure that out
If you read the Title of the thread and the first post, with any degree of comprehension, you would have discovered that five pages ago.

Duh! Do we really need to have Pat Mucci tell all of us something that obvious? Do I, as a low handicapper have the same available options throughout a round that Tiger Woods has? Does Pat Mucci? Of course not! So what? I have plenty of my own that Woods may never need to consider!

You're missing the point again, which isn't unusual.
I'm not talking about each of your rounds, I'm talking shot specific.  If you and Tiger have the identical shot into a green from 180 yards, he has far more options then you do, on that same shot.

If a 30-36 handicapper had his ball in the same location, he would have far fewer, if any options, when compared to you.

I'm not certain what Rich Goodale is trying to say about "consequences" versus "options" but unintended consequences of some shots have the potential to create all kinds of interesting "options" on shots to follow on a good golf course designed to offer them.

Perhaps Rich and Pat haven't considered the entire realm of the glorified recovery shot in golf as option oriented. One might consider that to be more the realm of the higher handicapper or less skilled golfer but it certainly can have exciting and interesting options!

If the higher handicap player can't execute the recovery shot, then it's not an option.

He may dream of Mickelson's flop wedge, or a 3-wood putt by Tiger, but if he doesn't have the ability to execute those shots, no viable option exists.

You and others seem to want to annoint HIGH handicappers with the shot making abilities of PGA Tour players.
Most HIGH handicappers default to their comfort zone and club selection, not daring to try shots they are incapable of pulling off.

Only, as ones skill level improves do options open up.
Options to the HIGH handicapper are a figment of your imagination, and limited to the players ability to execute.

TEll me, on each tee at NGLA what options exist for the 30-36 handicap player

Many of the best of the old architects spoke about options in the context of creating thoughtful problems and solutions for most golfers. Many of them also said it wasn't particularly necessary to create problems for the high handicapper simply because his game was "problem" enough for him. But, recognizing that, those old architects did consider that they should continuously offer the high handicapper "solutions" so that he could proceed and obviously that could mean conservatively or heroically!

Should the latter be considered options? Of course it should! What Pat Mucci appears to be trying to prove here is only that some handicap golfers do not have the SAME viable options as the better stronger player but again, that's completely obvious to all who play golf.

If it's so obvious, why are others arguing against it, and why did it take you five pages to figure out ?  

As you said above, Adam, I've noticed through the years some of the choices and options of women golfers and higher handicappers are some of the most interesting I've ever seen--and they certainly are meaningful to them. It puts me in mind of the admiration Bobby Jones once expressed for a way that Joyce Wethered chose to continuously play a hole at TOC. It impressed Jones tremendously as he'd never noticed it and he had high praise for both Wethered and TOC because of it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas & DMoriarty,

You both missed my point.

Which was, that the HIGH handicap has no options on the tee, his sole goal is to get the ball in play, anywhere.

It is only when handicaps become lower that options open up to the player, due to the reasonable degree of certainty that they can execute their selection of route, distance and ball flight.

It's not backward logic, it's reality.

Again, I ask you, tell me the options available to a 30-36 handicapper on each and every tee at NGLA ?

He has none, but to try to get the ball in play.

Now, ask yourself, what options does the zero handicap have on each and every tee  Quite a few.  Maybe three or four or more, just on the first tee.

[Steve Lang]

 

Pat Mucci,

Good morning, I see you've been busy so far today.. Yes we were keeping score, i went 47-41 = 88 and was giving 12, 10, and 8, strokes to my three opponents.  With that par on 9, I won a press for the front 9 against one opponent, they weren't amused.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

My side or after affects act like an alarm clock and usually wake me up at about three am.  Sometimes I can get back to sleep, but, I remembered that I had to send some important emails out, and decided to drop in on GCA.

Your round sounds like an experiment, a lark, or will your bag permanently retain that selection of clubs ?

[Steve Lang]

 

Pat,

It was a Saturday in the Sun, cool 56°F lark.  

The wedges and several other clubs were back in for our Couples tourney on Sunday, where ms sheila and i scrambled to a 70 gross, two under par, with two bogeys to take low net at 63.   Options abounding.. only score limited by ability!
 

[DMoriarty]

Shivas & DMoriarty,

You both missed my point.

Which was, that the HIGH handicap has no options on the tee, his sole goal is to get the ball in play, anywhere.

It is only when handicaps become lower that options open up to the player, due to the reasonable degree of certainty that they can execute their selection of route, distance and ball flight.

It's not backward logic, it's reality.

Again, I ask you, tell me the options available to a 30-36 handicapper on each and every tee at NGLA ?

He has none, but to try to get the ball in play.

Now, ask yourself, what options does the zero handicap have on each and every tee  Quite a few.  Maybe three or four or more, just on the first tee.

First patrick, even high handicappers eventually get the ball onto the green and into the hole.  So what if they dont do what they try to do every time?  Each time they advance the ball at all, they are faced with brand new options.  

Take a bunker in the middle of a wide fairway.  At some point the high handicapper is going to have to negotiate it, either by going left, right, over, or short (only to face the decision again.)   And even a high handicapper can often hit the ball in a general direction, especially when they have the appropriate club in their hands.  

When is the last time you have played with a real high handicapper?  I have played with one at least 6 times this year, and I can tell you, when he wasnt completely frustrated, he was making a lot of choices.  They usually involved whether to go around a hazard instead of over it.  Whether to bail out on an approach or hit at the green. Or deciding how close to try to lay up to a hazard.  But options nonetheless.

Patrick.  You know National much better than I, but a good place for you to start looking for options would be the schematic you describe above. When you do, forget about getting to greens in regulation, just think about lines of play.  Or, even better, I'll loan you my clubs and you can go out and experience the high handicapper's options for yourself.  

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

First patrick, even high handicappers eventually get the ball onto the green and into the hole.  So what if they dont do what they try to do every time?  Each time they advance the ball at all, they are faced with brand new options.

But, that's a product of random selection or unplanned consequence, not strategic planning, and they may not be faced with options, but instead, have a mandated path of play ahead of them.

Take a bunker in the middle of a wide fairway.  At some point the high handicapper is going to have to negotiate it, either by going left, right, over, or short (only to face the decision again.)   And even a high handicapper can often hit the ball in a general direction, especially when they have the appropriate club in their hands.  

I haven't seen many bunkers in the middle of a wide fairway in the United States.  Hidden Creek's 8th hole is the rare exception.  I think this is the phantom argument most use
when trying to CREATE an illustration that will serve their point, when in reality, the configuration almost never exists

When is the last time you have played with a real high handicapper?  

Every weekend for about the last 40 years

I have played with one at least 6 times this year, and I can tell you, when he wasnt completely frustrated, he was making a lot of choices.  They usually involved whether to go around a hazard instead of over it.  

What kind of golf courses and holes present that configuration ?  Most hazards are perimeter oriented, not centerline oriented.

Whether to bail out on an approach or hit at the green. Or deciding how close to try to lay up to a hazard.

I don't think HIGH handicappers possess the skill to pick their lay-up zone fronting a hazard.   You must play with Sandbaggers

But options nonetheless.

Patrick.  You know National much better than I, but a good place for you to start looking for options would be the schematic you describe above. When you do, forget about getting to greens in regulation, just think about lines of play.

I can't forget about getting to greens in regulation, I'm trying to shoot the best score I can, I'm not out there to explore ways to shoot 90.

This is where your argument fails.  
The lines of play you reference are intended for two seperate groups of golfers, the LOW handicap and the HIGH handicap.

If I play NGLA, I'm not going to take the bogey route, I'm trying to shoot par or better, and as such, for the most part, my route is predetermined, and only altered by the randomness of my mis-hits and their consequences.

Conversely, the HIGH handicap doesn't possess the talent, the ability to execute, necessary to take my route.  
He must take a different route, one that is mostly predetermined for him, again, adjusted for his random mis-hits, which have a broader shot pattern then the LOW handicap player's.

Or, even better, I'll loan you my clubs and you can go out and experience the high handicapper's options for yourself.

Even if I accept the HIGH handicappers feeble drive on
# 1, since my goal is par, my approach to the green is predetermined for me as well, a high aerial shot, landing over the bunker and short, or just on the green, feeding the ball, hopefully, to the appropriate tier.

While I'm capable of it, I'm not interested in hitting my next shot short of the bunker, or laying up left, short of the green.  I need to get my ball on the green, and since I possess, or used to possess the ability to execute that shot, I'm going to hit it.  Hence, I have no option.

However, the HIGH handicapper doesn't possess that shot and must play the predetermined HIGH handicap route, hence, he has no option.

Adding to this over the years is the development of the hard or hot ball.   Many HIGH handicap golfers, in order to get more distance opted for a ball that would achieve that goal, however, that ball would not react, at impact, like the Titleists that many, including myself were playing.  
This choice by the HIGH handicap golfer contributed to the one dimensional play of a hole.  Today, balls go further, and have better spin qualities, but, only for the better player, which further supports my theory about options and their residence in the domain of the LOW handicapper  

[Brian_Gracely]

DMoriarty/Patrick_Mucci
Take a bunker in the middle of a wide fairway.  At some point the high handicapper is going to have to negotiate it, either by going left, right, over, or short (only to face the decision again.)   And even a high handicapper can often hit the ball in a general direction, especially when they have the appropriate club in their hands.  

I haven't seen many bunkers in the middle of a wide fairway in the United States.  Hidden Creek's 8th hole is the rare exception.  I think this is the phantom argument most use
when trying to CREATE an illustration that will serve their point, when in reality, the configuration almost never exists

Keep an eye on the 15th hole at Oakland Hills during the Ryder Cup.  The solitary bunker is right in the middle of the fairway.  It's not an original Ross bunker, but one that RTJ added.

[Lester George]

I am beginning to believe that "talking" about it is more important than "doing" it.  Only one person accepted my invitation to play Kinloch Golf Club?  I guess its just Jim Kennedy and me then.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Lester;

Count me in, please;

Thank you for the kind invite.  Looking forward to meeting you and Mr. Kennedy.  

Mike

[Jimmy Muratt]

Lester,

I would also love to join you at Kinloch.  It would be a real treat to hear about the numerous strategic options that you present the players with.  Thanks again for the kind offer.

Regards,
Jimmy Muratt

[ForkaB]

Lester

Since I'm part of the dark side on this issue, I'd love to take up your offer and have you and Kennedy and Cirba and Kinloch prove me wrong, unlikely as that might be, but I'm 4000 miles away.  And yet, I will be in DC in early July..........

[Lester George]

JimmyVA,

You are in.  E-mail your information and I'll set it up.

Rich Goodale,

There is no darkside, and I have nothing to prove.  I just take delight in seeing peoples reaction to Kinloch.  We may not wait until July, but it will still be there.  Only 90 minutes from DC, so e-mail me with your agenda and I'll set you up.

As promised, the first four to respond are in.  

Regards,

Lester

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick Mucci,

You seem to be talking around DMoriarty's point.  You have to let go of your personal strategy of playing for par or better, reaching greens in regulation.  You talk of a 30-36 handicap, how you can claim this player has no options when you seem incapable of putting yourself in his shoes, even for a moment.

Let's be realistic here.  No 30-36 handicap is going out looking to shoot par or better.  Even if he is physically capable of reaching most of the holes in regulation, once he deviates from a path where that is a possibility (most often with his tee shot ) he is then moved into a strategy to reach the hole in regulation+1 and so on.

He's thinking in terms of breaking 100, which he may only do once or twice a season, but something like that 100 or 105 or whatever, is his goal.  Unless he's in denial about his lack of ability, he's quite prepared to move into strategies playing for bogey or even double bogey to avoid the really big numbers he needs to avoid to reach his scoring goal.

Just because the option he tries for on the tee of a 380 yard par 4 is "hit good drive I only hit 1 in 10 times, then hit a good approach on the green I only hit 1 in 10 times" doesn't mean he has no options.  Just that he has to be flexible when he slices it 175 into the right rough behind some trees and knows he can't hit the green from where he is.  Then his options change to something like 1) hit a 3W as hard as he can trying to reach the green anyway 2) hit a utility wood short of the green to leave a wedge third or 3) hit an iron into the fairway somewhere and leave short iron third.  Are those not options, just because his odds of successfully pulling them off are maybe 1/500, 1/10 and 1/5 respectively?

And don't forget the options you don't consider because you'd never try them yourself, like the 12 yard putt from 200 yards

[TEPaul]

Doug;

Good examples and of course those are options---they are not figaments of the high handicappers imaginaton etc. Obviously Pat Mucci is trying to maintain that the high handicapper's options are not the same as Tiger's options and vice versa by why in God's name do we need to carry on a six page thread to discuss something so obvious as that?

Perhaps it would be a good time to answer this thread by amending the title of it to read that options are not a figament of any golfers imagination but they are dictated by the limits of his ability for a reasonable chance of success which also doesn't exactly need to be stated as that too should be completely obvious to all.

Perhaps it would be better to have just said that a little old lady is not capable of driving the ball 300+ yards like Woods can and leaving it at that. Essentially that must be what Pat Mucci is trying to maintain here. Now isn't that a startling and sophisticated revelation on his part? He must feel that there's not one among us who has heretofore come to that remarkable conclusion! Isn't it just amazing the things Pat Mucci thinks he can teach us?  

Of course, Pat is likely to respond that he has been misinterpreted which seems to be a constant occurence since either no one agrees with him or no one has much idea what he's talking about anyway!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()