Opinions Please

[Patrick_Mucci]

et. al.,

One doesn't attain a very low handicap, zero or lower, because they weren't mentally tough.

That concept is sheer idiocy.

Whining, however, is a personality trait.

[Dan King]

Richard Farnswoth Goodale writes:
Corey Pavin would be a mild-mannered accountant and Tim Herron a Senior Vice President at Wendy's

To say Pavin and Herron are mentally tougher than their PGA Tour® compatriots is the very definition of faint praise.

Back in the day, say forty or fifty years ago, the golfers adjusted to the golf course, now it is the other way around. If the players on the PGA Tour® had to play on the courses, with the conditions and using the equipment of Byron Nelson's era, many of today's current spoiled players would not make a dime. You see it every time these players are faced with any sort of experience outside of their comfort level. There is no way a player like Phil Mickelson or Davis Love could putt on greens that weren't exactly the same speed, or get out of sand that isn't the exact consistency they are used to. Far too often they are pissed if their ball finds something less than an ideal lie in the fairway. The players of today are very good at playing one type of golf, it does not mean that would have any ability of playing any other type of golf or there aren't golfers out there better than them at non-PGA Tour® golf.

PS--the ability to putt a a ball into the hole with a driver from 30 yards off the 18th green to deprive another golfer of a small modicum of pride is an example of impiousness, not mental or physical ability.

After a quick check with www.m-w.com, I think we've found something to agree on.

Cheers,
Grandan King

Some players would complain if they had to play on Dolly Parton's bead spread.
 --Jimmy Demaret

[Rich Goodale]

Richard Farnswoth Goodale writes:
To say Pavin and Herron are mentally tougher than their PGA Tour® compatriots is the very definition of faint praise.

Some players would complain if they had to play on Dolly Parton's bead spread.
 --Jimmy Demaret

Dano

I said nothing of the sort re: Pavin and Herron, and what in hell is a "bead spread!"  Sounds interesting, though, if Dolly is involved......

Ricardo

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Back in the day, say forty or fifty years ago, the golfers adjusted to the golf course, now it is the other way around. If the players on the PGA Tour® had to play on the courses, with the conditions and using the equipment of Byron Nelson's era, many of today's current spoiled players would not make a dime. You see it every time these players are faced with any sort of experience outside of their comfort level. There is no way a player like Phil Mickelson or Davis Love could putt on greens that weren't exactly the same speed, or get out of sand that isn't the exact consistency they are used to. Far too often they are pissed if their ball finds something less than an ideal lie in the fairway. The players of today are very good at playing one type of golf, it does not mean that would have any ability of playing any other type of golf or there aren't golfers out there better than them at non-PGA Tour® golf.


A]

Dan King-

Davis Love and Phil Mickelson would do just fine if green speeds varied. These guys are good

The ability for the player to adjust to green speeds, type of grass, type of golf course, roughs, etc. is just that, their ability to adjust different playing conditions

It is not testing their mental game.

You know what tests Mickelsons mental game? PRESSURE. (see Shinnecock, Wingedfoot)

-Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Jimmy Demaret must have made that remark sometime between June of 1964 and the 28th of Dec, 1983.  

Saying that Tour players wouldn't make a dime playing in Nelson's 'era' because they are (basically) spoiled doesn't take into consideration that their 'attitudes' are products of their era, same as the gripers in Demaret's. This era may be used to more-perfect conditions, and bitch when they don't get them, but you can't seriously believe that a Mickelson or a Love(well, maybe not Love   ) wouldn't be able to adjust if faced with Nelson era conditions on a day to day basis, can you?

....and they do play two types of golf. A whole season here and then the British open, where they mostly seem to do well while the grousers, like the Hoch's, usually stay home.

[Dan King]

Richard Farnsworth Goodale writes:
Sounds interesting, though, if Dolly is involved.....

Reminds me of another Dolly Parton quote:
“My husband said 'show me your boobs' and I had to pull up my skirt... so it was time to get them done!”

M. Shea Sweeney writes:
The ability for the player to adjust to green speeds, type of grass, type of golf course, roughs, etc. is just that,  their ability to adjust different playing conditions

It is not testing their mental game.

The PGA Tour® tests shots. Adjusting requires thought, something in very short supply on the Tour. Watch sometime when these poor souls are stuck somewhere outside their comfort zone. Byron Nelson would eat these guys' lunch. Matter of fact, Ivan Gantz could make a few million against these country club kids.

Jim Kennedy writes:
Saying that Tour players wouldn't make a dime playing in Nelson's 'era'

I didn't say none of them would, but I have my doubts about a large number of them. We will never know because this is not a test they ever get asked to try.

A whole season here and then the British open, where they mostly seem to do well while the grousers, like the Hoch's, usually stay home.

And in most cases they take their American game and try to use it on British courses. If everything goes well, their American game works okay, if they run into difficulty many won't adjust, they will just head for home on Friday. There aren't many of them adjusting to seaside links golf. And the Open rotation courses have become more and more Americanized for the Open Championship.

Besides, they are qualifying for the Open Championship by their ability to make shots. There they compete against primarily other players who qualified by their shot making. No thinking required.


Cheers,
Grandan King

If he'd miss a tee shot, he would back off in the crowd and stomp hell out of his driver. Later I found that Ivan stomped with just his shoe, never the heel. I stomped with the heel.
 --Tommy Bolt (on Ivan Gantz)

[Joe Bentham]

Tim--
In four years on the resort I've seen less then a handful of players anywhere near that part of that particular bunker.  And I think that speaks volumes about this whole thread (minus the dribble about the mental game).
 

[RichMacafee]

Bitching about bad breaks is certainly not confined to one handicap category. Getting over them, and not letting them affect your next shot, can be however.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe B:

Thanks for pointing out the relative lack of play which that greenside bunker at Pacific Dunes sees.  I have always wondered how many people it was messing up.

One thing not pointed out on this thread is the psychological impact of having a few bunkers on a course with the potential for severe or even unplayable lies.  I think it has more effect on players than the playability itself, because in truth the number of players who find that trouble is very small.

Nobody complains about these kinds of lies at Pine Valley or Prairie Dunes.

[George Pazin]

Can someone address my question of whether or not plants such as the ones in the various photos can arise from lack of maintenance, as opposed to specifically being planted?

It's an honest question, not an attempt to deflect or divert.

-----

As for the mental thing, it's one thing for the mental game to be a determinant among players of similar physical skill, it's another entirely to say that the mental game is the primary reason A players are A players.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Nobody complains about these kinds of lies at Pine Valley or Prairie Dunes."

Tom D - that sentence seemed to hang there, waiting for a follow-up question, like:

Why do you think that is?

Does it have to do with golfers' expectations on the 'macro' level as oppossed to the 'micro' level?

(I'm not sure what those words mean; but I'm thinking Dan Kelly's question about uphill Par 3s is on the micro level)

Is the psychological impact of any ONE potentially-round-wrecking bunker lessened if the course is strewn with dozens of potentially-round-wrecking bunkers?

Peter
 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

There are lots of things accepted on older courses but criticized on newer ones.  They may be accepted on the newer courses over time, but not right away.  

Severe greens contouring and severe native material around bunkers are numbers 1 and 1A.  Pine Valley and Prairie Dunes are both poster children for both aspects.

I've heard lots of people wonder about the severity of the greens at Ballyneal, but there isn't one of them nearly as severe as #2 at Pine Valley or #12 at Prairie Dunes.

I'm not sure if that's macro or micro, or just hypocritical.

[Kirk Gill]

Pine Valley is relatively exclusive. Have the people bitching about the greens at Ballyneal ever played PV #2 ?

If so, it's likely the burden of historical greatness that is shutting them down.

[Doug Ralston]

I swear I hit one in the leftside bunker at Dale Hollow that looked similar, except for there was not much inside the bunker, just a terrible lining of the stuff. My ball was coming from VERY below the green [takes about +3 clubs for the hill], so it lodged under the lining and we only found it by running out of other possibilities and DIGGING for it. As I did not have a bulldozer in my bag, it was unplayable. Rather penal to say the least, but since we were not playing for anything, partner let me drop with only one stroke [no distance]. Nice guy!

It looks like fun to me! As long as you know what you are risking, no reason not to have it there I can think of.

Doug

Doug

[Joe Bentham]

TomD--
Will the new clubhouse plans lessen the psychological impact of the bunker in question?  

[Tim Bert]

Joe / Tom - To be clear, I wasn't complaining.  I was pointing out that some of the best courses I've ever played present similar issues to the one posed on this thread.  

In particular, the one at #18 PD isn't exactly out of play.  It is front right, similar to the one that kicked off the thread.  I agree that it rarely comes into play, but don't you both agree that the reason it doesn't come into play isn't due to lack of proximity to the green but rather due to the "There's no way in hell I'm going in there" approach.  I would bet there's an inordinate number of folks in the tamer bunker on the left or missing long due to the presence of that bunker.  The psychological imapct of that bunker begins at minute one of the golfer's first visit to the course if he takes the time to look at the 18th when walking by the clubhouse.

The other one I showed, from Sand Hills, is more out of play than the one at Pacific Dunes though the photo was only taken because my ball ended up there.  Absolutely no play possible from there, but if I ever get the opportunity to return I can assure you I won't end up there again.  

[Norbert P]

 It looks a bit unsafe to be hitting an impacted golf ball with an awkward swing.
 
  If this is the par 3 6th at St. Andy Beach, then anything short of the green will invariably cause a mild curse of dispair. Getting into that bunker would be a relief from the endless luge of the slope fronting the green.

  It looks cool, but safety of the players should be the priority.  And, since the archie disagrees with their appropriateness, then they should be removed.

 BTW, I went fearfully loong on my tee shot which merely extended my terror by having to hit back down to the green. No simple chip, that.

Congrats GranDan King!  The royal lineage goes on.

[Joe Bentham]

Tim--
I didn't really take it as a complaint.  I was only trying to point out the 'out of the way' nature of that spot, and other drastic bunkering in general.  The front part of that bunker, where 98% of the shots are played from, is really quit playable.  

[Doug Siebert]

Different players have different mental issues going on, I don't think it necessarily has much to do with how good or bad a golfer they are.  Obviously better golfers are more likely to have played in competitions and thus are more likely to handle that particular mental challenge well.

But I really have my doubts that it helps them at all in dealing with random or "unfair" results.  A random or "unfair" result from a shot affects a good player much more than a bad player, because losing a shot or worse yet more than one shot has a lot bigger impact on the score of a guy trying to break 70 than a guy trying to break 100.  Its just simple mathematics.  There are some 100 shooters who can shake off a 10 and play well, others fold.  There are some 70 shooters who can shake off a triple and play well, others fold.  Just because you can shoot 66 on a good day doesn't mean you can't shoot 82 on a bad one -- just look at John Daly!

Personally I have no problem at all dealing with unfairness, I can laugh it off and I'm fine on the next shot.  Some days you get the breaks, some days they break you.  What I can't recover from is my own stupid shots or worse yet stupid mental errors.  If I mess up that way, often I'll get mad at myself and just kind of give up mentally and stop caring at all how I play.  Sometimes that has the perverse result of making me start playing better, which just pisses me off even more!

[ed_getka]

David,
   Good to hear from you. I don't have a problem with a hazard  looking like that. As Tom Doak points out no one complains about the same thing at Prairie Dunes, and I can assure you it is more painful to escape from a yucca plant than that stuff at St.AB. It is a hazard and is meant to be avoided or cause you to suffer consequences. Granted, on this hole with the extreme depth of the bunker, the vegetation on the top certainly isn't necessary.
   As Tyler so astutely pointed out, the green will help feed balls around toward the hole, so there is no reason to mess with that bunker. For anyone who has not been there, that bunker lip is WELL over your head if you were foolish enough to even think of flirting with that bunker  and then came up short.