Every Monday the "Star Ledger" publishes the golf results for the weekend for all of the golf clubs in the subscription area in northern New Jersey.

Hundreds of names appear on those lists, and those are just the winners, thousands upon thousands of golfers compete every weekend at the local level, testing their games against their fellow clubmates and the golf course.

In addition, handicap and field size limitations restrict the number of entrants in State, Regional and National events.
[size=4x]
Golf is all about competition, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be any handicaps [/color][/size]

Patrick - I agree with you completely that golfers like to compete against each other, gamble, play games, try to shoot the lowest score they can, and strive to improve their skills over time.

Where we disagree is your contention that golfers want to have their game "tested" or "examined."

You obviously revel in the challenge a tough course, hole, or tournament challenge brings...

No, I don't.

You continually refer to having your game tested or examined in the sole context of difficulty, and, that's not the case.

An examination of one's game isn't a torture test.[/color]

the average golfer has very little interest in putting their game through such a public examination.

Since when does the public get to view the examination on a shot by shot basis ?  The "public" doesn't want to know "how", their focus is on "how many", hence I don't get the element of "scrutiny" that you've attached to the issue, be it at match or medal play.[/color]

As I said before, they know they can't play very well and they don't want a public forum to point it out.

Few, if any, "average" golfers engage in gross competitions.
Most are eager to compete on a net basis.
A basis where the handicap system levels the playing field.
A basis where the golfer can shoot sub-par rounds and destroy his competition.
Net tournaments are exceedingly popular in my neck of the woods because the handicap system allows golfers of different abilities to compete equally.  That's one of the beauties of the game.

At a Charity outing I played in last week at The Creek, the winning NET SCORE in a best ball of the foursome was 48.

All 136 golfers reveled in the competition.
The two groups I brought played against each other as well as competing in the tournament, and, we all had a great time, in our personal match and within the tournament.

Noone cared what the "public" thought of them or their play.[/color]

A good example of this is what happened at True Blue in Pawleys Island, SC. It was originally built to be a very difficult course... a complete examination of a player's game... the ultimate test.

For whom ?

The low handicap golfer playing in gross events ?[/color]

What happened is that few golfers enjoyed themselves and even fewer came back a second time. They came off the course mad as hell... and they were not going to take it anymore.

Why ?
Was there something about the set-up, the conditions, the architecture ?[/color]

A small percentage of really good players, like you, loved the course and couldn't wait to go back out and tackle the challenge again. They loved the test the course presented and sang its praises high and low.

When you say test, are you contexting the issue in terms of difficulty ?

Don't confine your definition of a challenge in the sole context of difficulty.  Is the 137 yard, down wind, down hill to a huge green, par 3 at NGLA a challenge ?   YES

Is it difficult to the degree that high handicappers don't like it ?   NO

There's a distinct difference in being challenged and being faced with a shot that's beyond the golfers abilities.
And that's where I think you're being confused.[/color]

But they were a very small minority. To stay alive True Blue had to make numerous changes to the course... changes that the good players called a "dumbing down" of the course. The good players simply couldn't understand why the changes had to be made... they didn't see anything wrong with the course the way it was. But, you know what? The average golfers came back in droves and they now sing the course's praises. The bottom line is that the good players loved the test True Blue presented, while the average player hated it.


Maybe the underlying architecture was lacking or one dimensional.   I couldn't say because I've never seen it.

But, NGLA is the antithesis.
Good and average golfers love it.
It has the ability to challenge the game of the entire spectrum of golfers who trod its fairways.

What did NGLA have that True Blue didn't ?
Probably the variety in the architecture that allowed it to challenge good and mediocre golfers[/color]

Perhaps you view my difference of opinion as just semantics, but I have had the opportunity to observe how thousands of average golfers view this subject. I can assure you that they do not seek to have their game "tested" the way scratch players do.

Of course they do when the challenge is commensurate with or a little above their game.   You keep wanting to equate the challenge presented to the scratch player to the challenge presented to the mid to high handicapper, and it's not.

When I ask mid to high handicappers if they'd like to play GCGC they jump at the chance, and, once they've played it, they beg to return.   WHY ?

GCGC certainly isn't an easy golf course.
The bunkers are deep, requiring ladders to descend and ascend.  The rough is deep, the carries challenging.

Yet, everyone loves the golf course.
Old members, young members, low handicaps, average handicaps and high handicaps.   WHY ?
Because it offers a unique challenge to all levels.[/color]

Yes, they enjoy competing with their friends for cokes and other wagers, but they don't want to play courses that beat them up and they don't want to play in individual strokeplay tournaments that "examine" their game.

The moment you used the term "beat them up" you're going to extremes to try to make your point.

What about the courses "beat them up" ?
Are they playing from the wrong tees ?
And, what courses in the U.S. routinely "beat up" every level of golfer ?

Why do the members and guests at Oakmont, Winged Foot, GCGC, Shinnecock, Seminole, Pine Valley and others revel in the challenge that's presented every day ?

Why do they clamor to play those courses, especially in tournaments ?

Club after club has to turn away members and guests from signing up for tournaments because the events are so popular that the fields fill up almost immediately.

WHY ?

I think most golfers gravitate toward and enjoy a REASONABLE challenge[/color]

Brent,

Why are you confining the challenge to stroke play ?

Aren't golfers challenged when they play match play ?

Aren't golfers challenged when they just go out and play a round by themselves ?

Michael, any guesstimate what percentage of the golfers in SC carry 'real' handicaps?