Shivas,


On that three or four times a year people who don't golf much and come up and ask you if you are a good golfer what do you say.....The answer has to be no.....One funny thing about the 17 handicap you mention....most of those guys who respect the game are guys who got started playing late in life and are better putters than guys like you and me who have been playing our whole lives....I know I'm a bad putter, the people who play with me know I am a bad putter, my wife and children know I am a bad putter.....I can't imagine ever shooting over 75 if I was a good putter...and if I never shot over 75 I would have no trouble saying I was a good golfer...of course my press clippings would say that for me...When you described your game if you had D.A. Points short game you described what would be one of the top Mid Ams in the Midwest....throw some even par rounds around at the State Am and USGA qualifiers and see where it gets ya...69, 72, 74, 75 might not win but it gets you a free pass back year after year...

To say that amateur golfers, generally speaking, even including probably most relatively low handicap amateur golfers, are going to be anywhere near a good tour pro and excellent tour pro putter like a Crenshaw or a Mickelson on highly sloped and contoured greens at really good speed is "Walter Mittyism" at its finest, in my opinion.

That certainly doesn't mean there haven't been some amateurs who are known to have putted really well and putted well in high level tournament golf just as well as a really good tour pro putter.

His name escapes me now, but there was a golfer who used to play in the Crump Cup who had a very successful amateur career (Opens and Walker Cups) who was a reknowned putter like that. Once he was walking into the lockerroom at Merion right behind Ben Hogan who he'd just played a round at the US Open with and when someone asked Hogan how it went he said (unaware this amateur was right behind him);

"I just played with an amateur who might be about the best putter I've ever seen."

Shivas,

Fill out your little chart with you against Ben....this in no way is admitting you are a bad putter...but just for giggles anyway.  Rich could change the title of the thread to "Do highly contoured greens favor low handicapers over touring pros..."  Its really the same thing just different.

"If not, well then I respect your judgment even more."

TomH:

Thank you---I appreciate that because I have no intention of wading back through 125+ posts on this thread. Furthermore, I have something much more important to do now which is to clip my cat's claws!      

Wow, this fusillade of posts is even more entertaining than the average Congu vs GHIN Goodale/Huckaby slugfest!

I'm not going to be at Cuscowilla, however, I think a duel is in order, and it'd be nice if someone could film it and put it up.

BTW, one thing it does prove is that there is such a thing as addiction to the internet.

"No duel is necessary - this remains all in good fun and humor."

TomH:

What're you talking about? A duel between you and Shivas certainly is necessary! Amongst men of honour duels have taken place for a whole lot less than just good fun and humor, so what will it be---guns or sabers tomorrow morning at sunrise? Since this is a golf and architecture website perhaps this one time we could make an exception and permit 1 irons iinstead but if so both of you must act like gentlemen and promise to only go for the nuts. If either of you really is injured and in life threatening pain, though, the other must do the honorable thing and put the downed man out of his misery with a well struck hooked or faded blow to the temple!

I suggest 1 irons at 235 yards!  How's that for loading the deck?

Wedges from 60 yards, I say.  I believe I'd be safe.

 

This is more like it!

Shivas mentioned the word "deck" which makes me think:

"Drivers off the deck at 200 yards would be fun to watch"

Even if you got hit, you still could play later that day.

Well, Barn, in truth, I tell them that I AM a pretty good golfer.  The reason?  I understand exactly how BAD most people are!  Somehow, i get the feeling that you think everybody is a single digit.  And in that world, an 8 hdcp. sucks.  But you and I know that that ain't the case.  

I believe there is something qualitatively different between what I'd label "good golfers" and all the other people you see on a golf course. A person who can shoot around par on a tough course in competition (my definition of a "good golfer") is completely different from a 6-handicapper who can shoot anywhere from 72 to 82 when there's no pressure but couldn't break 80 in a stroke-play tournament one time in twenty.

There are all kinds of ways to get a 6-handicap even with major holes in your game. A "good golfer" just about has to be at least decent at everything and also have at least a couple major strengths (awesome short game, mental toughness, great imagination and creativity or some other unusually good part of his game). That's what makes them "good". All IMO, of course.

You seem to be suggesting that the existence of a people like me who struggle to play bogey golf somehow minimizes the difference between a guy who play well in the Mid-Am versus a guy who finishes second in the B flight of his club championship. There are millions of people playing golf any Saturday who couldn't break 120 playing the ball down and putting it out. Does that make me a pretty-good golfer? No, it just means you can always point out someone worse.

I also draw a distinction between a "real golfer" versus someone who just plays golf. A "real golfer" can play at a reasonable pace, knows how to avoid destroying the course or annoying his playing companions, can at least occasionally string together two or three good golf shots and can handle bad conditions, bad breaks or bad weather without whining about the game being "unfair". Anyone can learn to be a "real golfer" but for some people becoming a "good golfer" might be an impossible dream.

Shivas said;

"Well, Tom, if I may say so, that's a downright silly thing to say.
This discussion has import.  Doak nailed why.  If we really want courses to be easier for the weak player and challenging to the good player, we should be very interested in whether heavy contour hurts the bad putter less than the good putter."

Shivas:

I don't agree that this discussion or this specific subject has import, not the least reason being the fact that you and Huckaby and some others can't even remotely agree on it. The upshot of that is that it's consequently incredibly unlikely that anyone else will agree as well and so therefore what could possibly be the utility of it short term or long term?

But if one wanted to basically accomplish perhaps the same effect here's another way it may be accomplished. Again, the idea here is to create more highly contoured greens in the future to create greater interest and perhaps simultaneously create a situation where the good player is more challenged in relation to the less good player.

What really limits the creation of more highly contoured greens in this day and age? Obviously increased green speed does but what's so wrong with increased green speed and highly contoured greens? Clearly the prospect of 3 putting or worse more often and for everyone. What's so wrong with 3 putting or worse in the real world? Nothing much more than the fact that everyone has been saddled with the PERCEPTION that 2 putting is the thing that's expected of everyone once their ball arrives at a green. Who created and fostered that perception of the expectation of 2 putting for everyone? Obviously the regulators of golf did somewhere along the line. Why did they do that? Probably to create what they thought was effective and efficient handicapping by hanging it totally on the concept of "par". Par tells us what to strive for---X amount of expected shots to reach various par holes and once on every green the expectation of 2 putting!

I say---what would happen if the regulators of golf would truly try to abolish the expectation of two putting at every green?

I think what would happen is the green end of golf would truly become that "democratic" area of golf and architecture where everyone really did have a better change against anyone else compared to the area of golf called "through the green"?

Why is that? Because the green and green-end is the only area of golf architecture that doesn't absolutely require strength to be ultimately successful. It requires only imagination and concentration, something that anyone should be able to do if they practiced it. Therefore the green and green-end really is that democratic area of golf and architecture and as such it should be fostered with more highly contoured greens to test everyone even strategically!

Have you ever thought of putting as a strategic thing to do Shivas? I bet you haven't. All you ever thought about putting was to make a putt or at the very least to get down in two putts. I bet that's even a locked-in expectation to you too.

Well remove that expectation---create highly sloped and contoured greens and the expectation of getting down in two putts would cease to be almost a requirment of golf due to the barometer of par and the expectation of all architecture and the idea of putting almost strategically to ensure getting down in three putts would take over as the ultimate goal not to be exceeded!

Think about it. If that could happen---the abolishment of the over-riding expectaion of two putting on every green by all golfers golf could be a lot more fun and a lot more potentially leveling amongst the entire spectrum of golfing abilities.

"Greens with a green" could become more of a reality instead of something to be avoided and something that's considered an architectural abomination!

 

PS-on Sunday I was beaten (giving 4 strokes) by an inferior player but better putter on greens which are highly contoured but were runnning slow and bumpy due to recent scarification.  My opponenty was not putting as well as I have seen him do, and I managed to slot two missable birdie putts, now that I think of it.  Does this not prove my thesis?

How is he an "inferior player" if he beat you?  This example only proves that putting is a vital part of golf, and Harvey Penick's statement that a good putter is a match for any man.  In fact, you say that he wasn't putting as well as you have seen, and that you made two you might otherwise have missed!  

If he putted below his best level, and you made a couple extra, and HE STILL BEAT YOU, then he is a superior player.  Further, I take it that you are saying that he would have putted even better on flat greens, thereby beating you by even more!

Thanks for disproving your own thesis.  Its way less trouble for the rest of us that way!

AG

If Vijay gives me 18 shots and I shoot 79 to his 62 and "beat" himone up, am I the superior player?  I think not, which is just one of the many reasons why my thesis remains foolproof.

Either that, or fool-proved!

Rich Goodale,
Your loss, giving 4 shots, to an "inferior" players might just as well prove any of the following:

1. Your opponent is a amoral sandbagger.
2. You carry a vanity handicap that you cannot play to under pressure.
3. He had a good day.
4. You had a bad day.
5. Golf is a funny game.
6. Golf is often not a fun game.
7. Giving strokes wasn't a great idea.
8. Fill in the blanks with your own pet theory.

I think, however, that if you want your Sunday afternoon match to be used to prove, once and for all, a particular thesis about golf course architecture, you are going from the instance to the generalization a bit more than is generally permissable in research.  

By this standard of research, for instance, Florida could be expected to be hit by two hurricances in a two-week period EVERY September, when in reality this year was the first time in 85 years that two had hit so close together.  Or, that in American presidential elections the winner is that candidate that finishes second in the popular voting.  

Possibly a bit more academic rigor is called for here before I jump off the bridge...