[Jeff Fortson]

At what point does a putt become worth 1/2 a stroke.  Could I hit a putter from 80 yards where it's easy to run it up and count that as a half a stroke?  Am I to assume that it is intended for balls that are "on the green"?

If so, I think it's a ridiculous idea.  Here is an example of the nightmare...

I am one inch off the green but 10 feet from the hole after a well executed iron shot.  My opponent is 70 feet away on the front of the green after his fat, skulled, shank barely gets one inch onto the green.  He three putts, I two putt.  We halve the hole?  How does that reward "ball striking"?  Not only did I hit the better iron shot but I also hit better putts!  Is that rewarding the better "ball striker"?  Last time I checked I was "striking" the ball with my putter when I putt.  

The 1/2 stroke idea is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever conceived (and usually supported by bad putters).

BAD IDEA.  


Jeff F.

[Tom Dunne]

Kids are often better putters in the first place. If anything, this would neutralize the advantage they have over the nervous wrists of the middle-aged golfer.

Tom,

We should send this newsflash to Michelle Wie.  Maybe she really doesn't know its easier to make every putt when you're 16 years old.

Jamie,

Touché....

[Eric_Terhorst]

It doesn't matter if it's 1/100, 1/2 or 1.  I would still be irritated on missing a 3-footer.

[Ted Kramer]

I'm not against making the hole a little bigger . . .

-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

I'm not against making the hole a little bigger . . .

-Ted

Actually, that isn't true. I would be 100% against making the hole bigger at this point. However, if I was around when the game was taking shape, I think I would have supported a larger hole.

-Ted

[Paul Payne]

Walt,

I ask again what difference does it make if you adjust par accordingly?

[Chris Kurzner]

Drive for show....


(this coming from someone who has averaged 36 putts a round for the last two months hitting nearly every fairway and many greens in regulation....)  

[JSlonis]

Check out the headline for this old photo that is on the Merion thread.

Apparently, putts did used to count as a 1/2 stroke.

[Walt_Cutshall]

Walt,

I ask again what difference does it make if you adjust par accordingly?

Paul, I think it would tend to emphasize the long game at the expense of the short game.

For everyone who thinks it is a ridiculous idea, think about this: a golfer hits a 340 yard drive down the middle of the fairway. That's one stroke. He hits a 20 draw around a tree to a green 190 yards away. That's one stroke. He makes a 1/2" putt. That's one stroke. All count the same. If you took someone who knew nothing about golf and showed them the scenario above, they would think the game as it stands right now is ridiculous.

How else would it effect the game? Superintendents would pay a lot more attention to the fringes around the greens. Some might keep the fringes long, to stop balls from rolling off the putting surface. Others might shave the fringes so that balls would easily roll off the greens (since a ball struck from the putting surface would count as 1/2 a stroke).

IMO, it is an interesting intellectual challenge to consider. BTW, I wouldn't support the idea--it would take away the best part of my game.  

[Adam Clayman]

Paul,

I agree there needs to be an adjustment in the attitude towards the Traditional #'s 70, 71,72, & 73 par for the course courses. Focusing on a traditional number is limiting. While also encouraging the bigger and bigger sites, longer walks, bigger budgets etc. Basically the direction we're on.

Building shorter(lower par) more interesting courses seems to be how one should comprehensively test the better players, While keeping the handicap player interested and more involved as a player and a fan. Who wouldn't want to see an Open Championship at Painswick with Par set at 40. I wonder if +10 would win?

It's a natural progression too, since there's only been bitching about the distances gained, throughout the history of the sport, due to technological & educational advances. No regulatory action, though every great designer warned "them" each and every era. Why do you think they ignored the Architects?

[Chris Cupit]

I think golf would be a more enjoyable game if putts only counted for 1/2 a stroke. For instance, if you hit a par 4 hole in regulation, then two putt, you'd make 3. If you one-putted, you'd make a 2.5. Instead of being a par 72, a course would be par 54. More emphasis would be placed on ball-striking, and less would be placed on putting and short game. There would be new emphasis on determining whether a ball was actually on the putting surface. Architects might respond by making greens smaller (or bigger--I can't quite decide). The game might be less enjoyable to us as we age, but more enjoyable to younger segments--perhaps enough so that more people would start taking up the game.

What do you think?

Walt,

Here is another quote from and "old dead guy" (as Mike Young would describe him) that is interesting,

"There are vandals in Britain who have failed to grasp the tradition and spirit of the game to such an extent that they would enlarge the holes in the putting green....There are others in America who would advocate that only half a stroke should be counted for each putt."
     "The Spirit of St. Andrews" by Alister MacKenzie

The issue has come up before and the attempt seems to be to minimize the role of putting in the game.  You mentioned that newcomers to the game, particularly younger players, might enjoy this version better.  I actually think that people stick with games they can get proficent with.  While golf is a hard game and this no doubt has an impact on attrition in the game, I think emphasizing the long game would only exacerbate this problem.

I think it is far easier to learn to chip and putt than to learn how to hit 250 yard drives or irons into the center of greens.  In fact, many teachers now begin teaching the short game first as a way to develop confidence in golf "newbies" as they progress to the more difficult aspects of the game.

I'm afraid that de-emphasizing the one area of the game that a "newbie" can become fairly good with in a relatively short time would have the opposite effect of drawing newcomers to the game.

 

[Jeff Fortson]

Walt,

I ask again what difference does it make if you adjust par accordingly?

Paul, I think it would tend to emphasize the long game at the expense of the short game.

For everyone who thinks it is a ridiculous idea, think about this: a golfer hits a 340 yard drive down the middle of the fairway. That's one stroke. He hits a 20 draw around a tree to a green 190 yards away. That's one stroke. He makes a 1/2" putt. That's one stroke. All count the same. If you took someone who knew nothing about golf and showed them the scenario above, they would think the game as it stands right now is ridiculous.

Walt,

Here is how I'd counter that last paragraph.  Everytime you strike a ball whether it travels 1/2" or 350 yards is a "strike" or "stroke".  In your proposal you make it seem unfair that a ball hit 300+ yards counts as much as a 1/2" putt.  Well, here is my question to you...  should someone that tops a ball 2 inches off the tee only be charged a 1/2 stroke?  Maybe only 1/10 of a stroke or another fraction.  What makes a flubbed chip that goes 5 inches any more valuable than a 5 inch putt?  Once you start going down this line of thinking you run down a slippery slope of judgement.  

I think if you showed an intellectual person the game as it stands now, that knew nothing of the game prior, that this topic would be off the radar screen for evaluation.  It's simple, everytime you make an effort to hit a ball you incur one stroke.  It is a simple concept that helps make golf great.[/b]


How else would it effect the game? Superintendents would pay a lot more attention to the fringes around the greens. Some might keep the fringes long, to stop balls from rolling off the putting surface. Others might shave the fringes so that balls would easily roll off the greens (since a ball struck from the putting surface would count as 1/2 a stroke).

How long would a fringe have to be to stop a ball from going off the green?  Since when did hitting the green become the focal point of the game?  This idea makes getting the ball on the green as, if not more, important than holing the ball out.


IMO, it is an interesting intellectual challenge to consider. BTW, I wouldn't support the idea--it would take away the best part of my game.  

It is a fun exercise but one that comes to the same conclusion for me.[/b]

Jeff F.

[Paul Payne]

Walt,

I don't agree with this for many reasons but first and foremost is this.

I sort of understand your idea on scoring with the 1/2 stroke concept but I think what you describe here is only an emotional advantage. if a player feels his long shots are worth more than his short shots he is comforted by that fact alone.

In reality when comparing your score to par you have to look at this in terms of units measured. If the expectation for par was four units (2 strokes and two half strokes or four units) then your ability to match that is measured on equal footing with the current system. In the end when in sport we add up points to see who won. "point is points".

The reason I bring this up is because if it is only an emotional security blanket for a poor putter and serves no other purpose in the game against par, is it worth all the fuss?

For that matter if you chose to enstate this rule without adjusting par (to create a true advantage for the big hitter / poor putting player) I feel you would see even greater resistance.

Bottom line however, amongst your freinds on a Satruday, if that is the fun way to play then go for it. There is nothing in the world to stop you. I just don't agree and I don't see how the logic holds up.

[Dan Kelly]

What if a putt counted for 1/2 stroke only on highly contoured greens?

[JSlonis]

What if a putt counted for 1/2 stroke only on highly contoured greens?

Ohhhh...no you didn't!

[Paul Payne]

Kelly,

I always like your humor.

My new Saturday rule says then, that a wiffed 10" putt would be 2 strokes.

[Scott Szabo]

Hasn't putting been referred to as the "great equalizer"?  

I'm sure all of us have, at one time or another, gotten beat in a match by a guy who hit it all over the place, then made every putt he looked at.  

Nothing more frustrating in golf than to play better from tee to green than your opponent, yet get whipped because of the inability to get the ball in the hole.

[Walt_Cutshall]

What if a putt counted for 1/2 stroke only on highly contoured greens?

Now that's funny!  

[TEPaul]

WaltC:

You should read the section of George Thomas's book "Golf Architecture in America" on half strokes for putts.

When one first looks at it or reads only the first half of the section one tends to get the impression that Thomas may not have liked putting.

It really doesn't appear that was what he was after. He did make the case that putting strokes are app half the strokes of a round and perhaps that's too great a percentage with a single club but what he really seemed to be after is the fact that if half strokes for putts were adopted that would give architects and architecture so much more latitude to design and build so-called half par length holes, which would create better variety (and perhaps use less land) but also that bunkering wouldn't have to be used nearly as much and that would reduce the cost of course construction and maintenance and consequently the cost of the game.

Personally, I believe Alister Mackenzie was the best architect ever but I feel George Thomas may've been the most interesting and probably the most impressive "outside the box" thinker, in a number of ways, golf architecture has ever known.

I haven't thought a lot about it but if it were adopted it would probably have to be just a match play thing. It seems sort of odd for someone to win at stroke play be 1/2 of a stroke.  

[Jason Blasberg]

NO!

[Forrest Richardson]

Counting 1/2 strokes at greens lessens the time to play the game...

"One of the great qualities of golf is that it does take a comparatively long time to play a full round of golf. In a world where we have abandoned the double-feature movie, shop with a click, and relegate lunch to munching down on the run, I find it wonderful to do something — this one thing — for a relatively long time.

The variables of the time it takes to play golf include: (a) the golfer; (b) the course; and (c) the game being played. Golf course managers have tried to corral the first variable. We send golfers out on the correct set of tees, and we even set up courses on busy days so that play proceeds from where we want it to. As for courses, we have tried all sorts of alternative lengths and ideas, but we come back to the consumer’s desire for “real golf” — the course of 6800 yards with a par to match at 71 or 72. Most people feel fulfilled at 18 holes in the same way they feel fulfilled by watching a two-hour movie compared to a 45-minute “film.”

[So...] What games could be played on existing 18-hole regulation golf courses, perhaps on busy Saturday mornings? How about a required format such as ... a version of the arbitrary values solution proposed by George C. Thomas Jr.?

Arbitrary Values
Golf architect George C. Thomas Jr. promoted the idea that par was too arbitrary and that it needed to be overhauled. His interesting view was that greens could be smaller and less emphasis placed on their size if putts would count for half a stroke only. This might also speed up play, as the counting of a putt for an entire stroke would be done away with and golfers would not take so much time worrying over half of the score to be counted. Accuracy from the fairway would be rewarded. In essence, hitting greens in regulation or less would come with an advantage. Accuracy would be rewarded until the point of reaching the green. In match play format, the idea that Thomas promoted can make for a very quick game. A hole may be decided early by concession or otherwise."

(from Routing the Golf Course)

[Darren_Kilfara]

Why would people take less time over a putt if it counted for 1/2 a stroke? You'd still want to take fewer 1/2 strokes than anyone else, right? I don't see the logic there...

[Forrest Richardson]

With not as much at stake, putts MAY involve less time. Certainly, it could decide match play quicker. The focus of Thomas' theory is on less maintenance, construction cost — and time to play. The emphasis is partially shifted to accuracy to reach a green, as fewer strokes up to that point are rewarded by counting as a whole. Accuracy is the key. It would no longer reward the long, but off-line, shot to the green...only the shot played that stays put. While debatable, this alone would tend to suggest less time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()