[THuckaby2]

David:

Of course it is wrong to generalize here.. I just thought that in past conversations on this subject and others like it, you have at times advocated the thoughtful play just for the sake of making such, not really with score in mind as the absolute be all and end all goal... and you will note I said "some of the time."

Which is actually pretty cool, something I'm trying to do myself from time to time, as a fun mental test.

Of course like all of us I'm sure you that for the most part you do have a competitive goal in mind, be it winning a match or shooting a score.  Heck, we all do without a doubt - I know I do much of the time, even though in my anti-competitive zeal towards NATO I try to avoid this.  I just used you as an example on the one side, and shivas on the other, to say that that is not ALL that is entailed in golf.

And one thing is certain, I haven't played enough golf with you!  Perhaps we can rectify that soon enough.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

What about match play?  My goal in match play is to beat or tie my opponent, depending on the circumstances.  Score be damned, I will lay up from 3 feet, if that's what it takes.

I addressed match play.
You didn't read my post carefully enough,
I mentioned scoring lower then your opponent

It is a mistake to confuse my words on this board with my play on the course, as it probably is with many of us.

You're correct. I mentioned this too, action speaks louder then words, and talk is cheap  

[JSlonis]

Tom H,

I guess for me there is GOLF golf and casual or practice golf, and I'd gladly play either or...any time any place.

I need to get to one of our GCA functions so we could play whatever type suits us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

1. Shivas at GCGC - I know enough of the man to GUESS[/color] how his round went there.

You must be kidding.

Perhaps his desire to perform well was influenced by the golfing environment at GCGC, the golf course, the history and traditions, the pace of play requirement, and the golfers he was paired with.  He wasn't interested in experimenting with new shots or trying to drive greens.  He was interested in playing well and scoring as low as he could.  He was playing GOLF at a GOLF CLUB.

Who wants to play golf with a guy who doesn't care about his score, or who isn't trying to play and score as well as he can.
If you're that cavalier about the game, you might as well stay on the practice tee.

Ran and I have had many matches at different courses.
Every match was enjoyable, we had fun, paid attention to the architecture, told stories and jokes, but deep down, we tried to play our best golf in an attempt to compete and beat each other.

I enjoy competition, against the golf course, fellow competitors, especially if they're better then me, and myself.
And, the moment I don't want to try to play my best to score the lowest, I'm not playing golf, I'm fooling around.

He can step in and confirm for himself, but I bet I am right.  In any case it's just an example.  So screw it, change it to one of the rounds I played with him, at Pasatiempo.  Everything I say applies there perfectly - and the general is the point anwyay, not the specific.

2. I know how he plays because I have seen it, and we have discussed it many times.  I also tend to play this way myself quite often.

Maybe that's how he plays when he's with you.
But, he didn't play that way with me.

3. Because the goal is changed does not at all mean the strategy goes away...  What you say is absolutely illogical.  

No it's not, it's as simple as 2+2 = 4.

Taking one choice over another means the choices cease to exist?  Nope.  Wrong.

You still don't get it, it's not making one choice versus another, it's eliminating the goal of the game, and when one does that, strategy automatically ceases to exist.

4. You have one definition of "playing golf", certainly your opinion.  Mine is quite different.  What shivas does absolutely IS playing golf.  You can call it whatever you want though, to help your incredibly weak argument here!

Read the USGA rules of Golf.
Start with Rule 1-1.
Then read the balance of the Rules, and the decisions, and then tell me what the game is about.

The rest matters not.  Just refer to my #3 here, it says all that need be said.  Changing the goal absolutely does NOT make the choices cease to exist.  A very valid GOAL on a golf course is to "have fun".  

You must be out of your mind.
If you HAVE to go to a golf course to have fun you need to spend time with Dr Katz, who is on full time retainer with TEPaul.
UNLESS you're talking about night putting, then, I might agree with you

But, an object or goal of the game is not to have fun, it may be a byproduct of the company you're in, or your performance, but, it's definately not a goal of the game.

The fact you can't see this is quite disapponting to me... as I have a feeling that when actually playing the game instead of discussing it here, you achieve this goal quite well.  In any case, that goal is very valid, and can be achieved many ways, many of which have nothing to do with one's score.

I'll have to let other posters comment on whether they enjoyed playing with me and what my demeanor was.  

And in these ways, strategic choices absolutely do exist, as I've described already using my lawyer friends as examples of how it works on both sides, neither concerned a lick with score.

If you're not concerned with score, you can't be concerned with results, hence strategy doesn't exist

You can choose to try and "win" an argument by calling what they do some other game, but if that's all you have to combat me with here, then that is the greatest disappointment of all.  I expect so much more from you!

You're blindness to the logic shouldn't be grounds for being disappointed in others.  You just don't get it.  2+2=4.

So when do I get thrown out of the club?

When you start teeing it up with tennis balls, play the holes backwards and announce to everyone else that you don't care about your score, you're just going out there to have fun, and hit the ball....... where ever ?

Michael Moore,

Where are you when I need you.

Do you see how the disciples of TEPaul think ?

[THuckaby2]

Jamie:

Potato, Potahto, cool by me.

Patrick:

Sorry my friend, 'tis you who painfully misses what is really a very easy point here.  Yes, 2+2 DOES equal four, as much as you'd like it not to in some misguided desire to make some misguided point.

Let me repeat (leaving shivas out of this and using myself, thank you very much - what the hell difference does it really make how his round went with you playing GOLF at a GOLF club?  Yeah, Pasa is neither.  Gimme a break.  I just know what he told me about THAT EXACT ROUND, and how he has acted in other rounds with me.  Guess we must have been playing tennis.  But I digress.):

What I play when I don't keep score, and fire shots all over the place, is as "golf" to me as what Jamie does in the Pennsyvlania state amateur.  And strategic choices sure as heck do exist in what I do when I play this way - I just choose to take the riskiest version, because my goal is fun, not score.

Is also as much golf to me as any match you have ever played is to you.

It's also far from ALL that I do in golf, but I expect you know that.

It remains a big beautiful world of golf, with room for one and all.

BTW, the fun I have playing golf decreases proportionately with how serious playing partners are about their score.  I guess we really do have fundamentally different ways of looking at the game...

Which is certainly fine with me.

 

TH

[SPDB]

I did add the caveate, "lower then your opponent" which allows one to include the "STYMIE" while at the same time accomplishing your goal of scoring less then him.  

Where? When? Point me to it.
Who wants to take Pat's place as Stymie Advocate No. 1? We can't have inconsistency.

[Brian_Gracely]

I did add the caveate, "lower then your opponent" which allows one to include the "STYMIE" while at the same time accomplishing your goal of scoring less then him.  

Where? When? Point me to it.
Who wants to take Pat's place as Stymie Advocate No. 1? We can't have inconsistency.

Hmmm....bring back the Stymie vs. advocating continuous putting to speed up play??  They seem to be diabolically opposed but yet both could add value back into the game.  How much bounce was on player's clubs that we used when playing over a stymie?  

[paul cowley]

...i feel strategy is alot like slalom skiing...depending on your skills you can carve as close to the pole as you dare in order to gain advantage on the next....the designer sets the poles though.............and its your choice on how to best manuever the course.

[DMoriarty]

I addressed match play.
You didn't read my post carefully enough,
I mentioned scoring lower then your opponent

Actually, what you did was summarize Rule 1.1:

You, of all people, should reread the USGA rule book, especially RULE 1-1.  The entire game is founded on competition, getting the ball into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, or fewer strokes then your opponent.

But apparently your standards differ from the USGA's--  In the very next sentence you contradict the USGA by insisting that the golf is trying to get into the hole in the fewest strokes possible.  And everything else [including matchplay, which doesnt require getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible] is not golf.  Read for yourself.

If you're not trying to get the ball from the teeing ground into the hole in the fewest strokes possible, then you're not playing golf.

You didnt write your post carefully enough . . .

[BCrosby]

Pat is not only right, he HAS to be right. His conjecture is no more than unpacking the meaning of "strategic play" in a medal round.

To test his thesis, let's all open our Immanuel Kant and see if the negative of Pat's statement makes any sense. Its negative might go something like this:

"He is playing non-strategically in order to shoot the lowest possible score."

Sounds like non-sense to me.

Ergo, Pat is right. (Jeeze, that last bit was hard to type. )

Bob

[munson]

Exceptions: Golfing with the managing partner, in-laws or a first date. Match play. Tin Cup.

Strategy is playing to win, regardless of the game or sport. Winning is defined by the player.

[THuckaby2]

Munson is a wise man.

Winning can be defined many different ways.

And some of those ways certainly do not entail taking less strokes than your opponent.

And Bob, of course Pat has to be right if one defines "golf"
as only existing in score-focused, medal play.  I have conceded that several times.  But is that all that golf is?  Read Munson's very apt exceptions.... and those are far from all that exist...

Here's an example that I believe everyone ought to be able to grasp:

There's a certain golf hole on the Monterey Peninsula that feaures a 200 yard carry over water, with a safe bailout area to the left that can be accessed by putter if one takes prudence to its extreme.  For nearly all golfers, the best way to achieve the lowest possible score the vast majority of the time is to take the avenue to the left, hitting their most comfortable iron, then pitching the ball onto the green (a simple shot with nothing in the way, from this left side), taking their chances at making a putt.  Taking this strategic tack, four would be their maximum score damn near all the time, and a certain number of threes would be achieved.

Yet rare is the golfer indeed who follows this strategy.  Nope - welcome to #16 at Cypress, and damn if they are gonna take the wise choice, for so many very valid reasons.  They know in their heart their best chance for the best score is to go left, but they ignore this and fire at the pin, hoping for glory.

So the proper strategic choice has been ignored.  Focus on achieving the best score possible has been ignored.  Yet the players soldier on, and you tell them that at that moment they are not playing golf.  Of course they are, and it's silly to even think that they aren't.

So these guys are playing golf, most definitely... And therefore, if Pat were right, the patch of land to the left just ceased to exist.  Last I checked, it was still there.

Case dismissed.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

And Bob, of course Pat has to be right if one defines "golf"
as only existing in score-focused, medal play.

Huck- You are wrong, Pat is still wrong!

And Huck, I know you haven't seen or heard about alot of the shots played at 16, but I have it on good authority that many players do choose to play over towards 17 fairway.

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

I don't doubt that all sorts of shots are hit on that wonderful golf hole.  Wouldn't you agree though that it's fair to say that a certain "screw it, I'm going for it, this is my one chance at immortality" attitude does exist there?  It sure has every time I've been there... and in everyone I've ever talked to except one....

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- No doubt, but the members are the ones who have the experience and knowledge and they are the ones I was referencing.

The most obvious argument so far is how in the hell does PM know what a 30-36 hndcp'r thinks, or does.

[THuckaby2]

I'm sure the members, playing the hole all the time, don't need the macho thrill, so heck yeah, more often they do make the prudent play.  But visitors?  No way.  And of course we also have a common friend who the last time I discussed this with him, had still yet to go left outside of certain times in awful weather, and had made the carry something like 37 times in a row.  Great chap he is, damn fine super-senior player.  

In any case, it matters not what the members do, or what the majority does, on that great golf hole.  All it takes is one instance to negate Pat's statement, because his statement is an ALL proposition.  It just blows him away even better that so many instances do exist!

And re trying to say what 36 handicappers do, I used to fall into that myself, until a wise man named Pazin showed me the errors of my ways there.  For one thing, they are not all the same, just as all low 'cappers aren't all the same.  And for another, of course low 'cappers can't put themselves in their shoes, as much as they think they can.

TH

[BCrosby]

Tom H -

I don't think Pat is saying that strategic golf is the only way to play golf. There are lots of ways to play.

Some of those ways include:

 - non-strategic golf where you don't care about scoring

 - bad strategic golf where you care about scoring (that is, you make a lot of bad decisions)

But it makes no sense to talk about playing non-strategically and trying to shoot as low as you possibly can, given your skill set.

It makes no sense because embedded in very the meaning of "strategic" is the notion that you are making decisions for the sole purpose of shooting the lowest score you possibly can.

I am playing golf when I play casually with my wife of a Sunday afternoon and don't care where I hit it. We chat, have some beer, notice the new bluebird nests, talk about our wayward children, etc. It is a delightful way to play sometimes.

But I am not playing strategic golf.

Bob

[THuckaby2]

Bob:

Oh man, I am groaning... do you really want to add another qualifier to this game we all know we are playing?  Am I seriously to believe that there is a different game called "strategic golf"?

Look, I really think you and I agree on what we play, and if we could get Patrick out of argument for argument's sake mode and back to reality not caring if for once he actually is wrong in a very real sense, he'd agree also.

Golf is golf is golf is golf is golf.

It can entail strategic choices making use of options, in a means toward achieving the best possible score, or it can be played with none of that as part of the equation at all.

But it remains the same sport.

And the options and strategic choices simply do not cease to exist just because they are either ignored, or the goal is changed.

This really is pretty simple.

I think you are bogged down in something you THINK I, or someone else said, i.e.:

"it makes no sense to talk about playing non-strategically and trying to shoot as low as you possibly can, given your skill set."

OF COURSE THAT IS TRUE!  But that is also one of my givens... many times in this game, one knows the right choice for a shot to give one the best chance at the best possible score, but for whatever reason, one ignores it or goes ahead and hits the least prudent shot anyway, because achievement of the lowest score is not important to him.  So the "trying to shoot as low as you possibly can" part is taken out!  

But does this mean the choices cease to exist?

See, Patrick is saying that they do.  Read the second statement in his original post.

I find that completely illogical.

The left part of #16 Cypress is indeed still there, pending earthquake.

TH

[BCrosby]

Tom H. -

It doesn't bother me that there are different species of golf. They are all members of the genus "golf", but each has its own distinctive stripes.

There is strategic golf, casual golf, drunk golf, stoned golf, night golf (try it, you'll like it), swim suit golf (We did this as kids. The rule was you had to walk or swim through all water hazards.), cross country golf (You played from the Exxon Station to the Dairy Queen. High score bought dip cones.)

All very different games under the big golf tent.

Bob

P.S. Your statement:

"many times in this game, one knows the right choice for a shot to give one the best chance at the best possible score, but for whatever reason, one ignores it or goes ahead and hits the least prudent shot anyway, because achievement of the lowest score is not important to him"

states pretty well the threshold between playing strategically and playing non-strategically.  

 

[THuckaby2]

Bob:

Never assume I haven't tried anything in this game.  I will say no more.  

OK, I guess we've taken this far enough.  When Patrick says that outside of playing for score strategy is NONEXISTENT, I just take issue, for all the reasons I said.  All the rest is just quibbling.

I guess it comes down to this:  I do firmly believe that strategy exists whether one avails one's self of it or not.  But perhaps it comes down to how we define THAT WORD... which no, I have no need to quibble over further!

TH

[BCrosby]

Tom H -

I just came across this quotation. I thought we both might get a chuckle out of it.

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."

--Sir Winston Churchill

Bob

[THuckaby2]

 

Perfect!

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

What I play when I DON"T keep score, and fire shots all over the place, is as "golf" to me as what Jamie does in the Pennsyvlania state amateur. 

You're deluding yourself, you're not playing golf, you're practiciing.

You keep on confusing choices with strategy.
It's obvious that you don't see the disconnect.
If the goal is removed, the choices are irrelevant

A Clayman,

Simple, because I used to be one, and, I've played with a zillion of them.

[Special Ed]

Arguing with Pat is like the Special Olympics....even if you win you are still retarded.

[THuckaby2]

What I play when I DON"T keep score, and fire shots all over the place, is as "golf" to me as what Jamie does in the Pennsyvlania state amateur. 

You're deluding yourself, you're not playing golf, you're practiciing.

You keep on confusing choices with strategy.
It's obvious that you don't see the disconnect.
If the goal is removed, the choices are irrelevant

A Clayman,

Simple, because I used to be one, and, I've played with a zillion of them.

Patrick:  Nope.  You keep missing that the goal is not removed, it's just changed.  The goal is the HOW, not the how many.  And the strategy simply does not cease to exist just because one ignores it.

Man this is so simple even a Notre Dame man ought to be able to get it.  But I should know better.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()