What do you gentlemen consider a worthy club championship flight field number of participants to be reasonably proud to be the champion of?
If you win the championship flight, you've beaten everybody -- the whole club
Are only the top 12 that can play the yardage considered a worthy field? If so, go to it.
12 guys who belong in the championship flight and SHOULD BE playing from far back tees. The rest should play from progressively "up" tees. Isn't that what this whole board has been preaching for half a decade?
Dave, you either can't read well, or I am displaying my lack of writing ability, which I know I cause many to suffer through on account of my poor gramar. But, trying again...
How many is a worthy championship field, and by what criteria? As Bill just said, shouldn't it be based upon first one must have to enter or qualify, and have a handi under say 3 on that course from the back everyday tees? I can't believe a great club like Medinah only has 12 guys that can fit that! Maybe I'm wrong.
I have always said other flights should play from appropriate tees. I do think the flights should have staggered distances. I never said they shouldn't. I just want to know what is fair for championship flight for the whole pack that 'qualifies'. I suggested criteria;
<3 handi from back everyday tees.
-find a suitable yardage for that group, suggesting perhaps that 85% of field can reach the par 4s with Driver off tee, three wood second, perhaps leaving that at no longer than a couple 460 par 4s, with the majority of the par 4s between 310 and 430. Are you saying you don't want a drivable par 4 for the big hitter gamblers?
And I said that the par 5s should all be reachable optimally with no more than 7 iron on the 3RD SHOT! I didn't say second shot! That leaves even me-a hack able to negotiate up to 570 optimally! Do you need 620s? With at least one or two under 520 that leaves big hitters able to go for it in two. What is so bad about that? And, at least two par 3s of short and mid iron length. Or are those clubs no longer part of a champion's repetoire?
I would think that the above criteria must be able to include more than 12 players at Medinah. Or, maybe that club ain't all that. Cripes, I think we have at least 12 in our silly little men's club that can do that. I think a guy that can't beat a field of at least 25 at about 7000 yards at Medinah, but can win from a field of 12 at 7400 is not the best golfer. He is an anomaly.
No one said the ace players had to play the tees with the chops in C and D flight. You are doing that lawyer thing again...
I'd like to be the champion of a club course where the likes of Corey Pavin and Fred Funk have a chance to beat me because they are great and have all great parts of the game except maybe length.
-Well, here we go..... a player is great, even if they're short. This is really what this boils down to, isn't it. Lack of length is not supposed to disqualify a player. That's the position?
If it is down to length as the most important determinant, then the long drive contest should be your thing, not club championship with only a handful that have a chance, IMO.
-Wrong! It's up to the short hitters to make up for their lack of length. Just like it's up to the long but wild hitters to make up for their lack of accuracy and it's up to the crappy putters to hit it stiff all the time to make up for the fact that they 3-jerk from 15 feet all the time. Why is it that you want all the weaknesses of the long hitter's game to remain, but you want to eviscerate the weaknesses of the short hitters? Does that seem fair to you or something?
-Well, let me tell ya, pardna, the sissy short hitters should spend more time on the range and less time in the 19th hole getting sloshed and playing cards!
What can I say, we see things differently. You place high emphasis on long hitting ability, I place high emphasis on a combination of clever thinking, clever striking, great putting, and playing within the realm of a low handicapper <3 challenging distance. That should still be someone that may only drive the ball average of 260-70 and hit 3 iron 200. If that doesn't describe 85% of top club players, I don't know what to say.
But, you say that the otherwise great player that can only hit it 260-270driver and 200 3 iron needs to go to the range to get better ignoring reality that getting longer than that is physically impossible for many. You are setting up a much more narrow criteria that isn't within my understanding of great golf. You want a freak show in distance to determine a great golfer. That is poppycock. Jason Zubick or who ever is the current freak should be the Medinah club champ. All hail Zubick.
I don't want to eviserate the weaknesses of the short hitter at all. I want to allow compensation to an all around good club player who can cope with being a little shorter, not exclude him completely merely by unrealistic length. I don't want the weaknesses to remain for the long hitter by favoring a short hitter. There is no such thing as 'favoring' the shorter hitter, per se. The long hitter always has the advantage. Just not show that long hitting is the sole determinant factor. The long hitter can still long hit to short par 4s, or go for it in two on par 5s to greater advantage. Where does that exclude him from using his prowess? Or can't he read greens and putt or use multiple accurate strikes on shots of delicate approaches? If the shorter guy can do that on a fair and inclusive set-up regarding championship distance (not girls tees) and win; he is a MUCH MUCH better player, IMHO.