[George Pazin]

One of the most fascinating aspects of the game to me is the scoring - as the saying goes, it's not how, it's how many.

I think better golfers find the ordinal scoring - whole numbers, no fractions, no bonuses for GIRs, fairways hit, etc - subconsciously frustrating. Seeing someone miss a fairway by a country mile, only to watch that someone conjure up a miracle that reaches the green, and then watching helplessly as that 40 footer trickles in for birdie, while his own split fairway, stiffed iron to 10 feet then lips out, losing either a stroke or the hole has to really wear on one's belief system.

What the result for architecture? My own guess is that it leads to things like:

- longer rough and narrowing of fairways (that'll show 'em!)

- boring greens (gotta make things black and white to penalize the mishits)

- slower play (rough slows things down, extra hazards to punish the wayward shot)

The flip side of this is that this same scoring system creates inherent excitement (you're never out of a hole or tournament), and leaves every golfer with the notion that he could have done just a little better, thus bringing him back.

What is a result of this? Again, I'm just guessing, but:

- the match play part of the game encourages risk taking (though apparently only among the foolish like me, I'm told by far better golfers...)

- pushes the thoughtful architect to really think things through - black and white scoring may be a crutch for the less talented, but a motivator for the more talented.

I could add more, but why should I do all the heavy lifting? Actually, I had a lot more thought up while printin' over the weekend, but the heat just drained those ideas right out into the netherworld.

What do you think? Good or bad? Is there an easy fix? Hard fix? No fix?

[Brent Hutto]

The main implication of whole-stroke scoring is to elevate the importance of putting. It's a big part of what makes the 4-footer in competition such a stressful undertaking. A wonderful tee shot or a terrible one each cost you something but the reckoning is postponed. Same for the second shot and in many cases even a miraculous pitch or bunker shot that doesn't quite go in the whole leaves you with a missable putt. The entire hole consists of outcomes that are easy (relatively easy at least) to shrug off because the cost is deferred. Miss or make that 4-footer and the accounting is reconciled at that instant. You can't make up for it with a good next putt and you can't have a made 4-footer taken away from you by a later poor shot.

I suspect it is not good players but rather overzealous and bloody-minded "guardians of the game" who mistake this ordinal aspect for a moral failing of their course setup or architecture. The only thing more ridiculous and counter-productive than a golfer who can't get the idea of card and pencil out of his head is the course owner, tournament organizer or architect who can't see past the "Minus BIGNUM" on a scorecard and who resorts to silly, moralistic penal features to try and restore right order to the world (in his myopic reckoning).

[JESII]

Easy fix!

Just keep the people that do all that stuff in your first example away from golf course decision making...

[Anthony Gray]

  A low handicapper once told me that he thought Pacific Dunes was unfair to the low handicapper because the greens were too big. He said after a long drive he could find himself on the green in the same spot as a lesser golfer who drove the ball 40 yards less after the approach shot. I never loked at it that way before. Do I agree. I do not know. But at TOC which has large greens the better players seem to prevail.

  Anthony

[Bill_McBride]

Great example in the playoff at Colonial............

Tim Clark misses a 4'-er that would have won the tournament on the first playoff hole.

Steve Stricker sticks one close on the second playoff hole.

Clark then stuffs one that unfortunately hits the flagstick and bounces 20' away.  

Pity.  Hard luck.  Scoring as it is, Clark loses.  Stricker holes his putt, Clark doesn't.

[Mike Wagner]

Anthony,

Your low handicap friend is just plain wrong!  Over the long haul, things work out.  That's the fun of courses with large greens - especially at Bandon.....I love to see friends I'm giving strokes to with 60, 70, 80 footers - they're no bargain for anyone!

I think the real reason I replied to this is that I can't stand whiners who use words like "unfair" - it's demeaning to the game, ESPECIALLY in reference to one of the greatest courses on the planet!!

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

If your friend thought the greens at Pacific Dunes (4,000 to 8,000 sq ft) were big, he will be apoplectic about the greens at Old Macdonald, which must be twice as big on average.  In fact, you'd better tell him not to even go back there, or he might have a coronary.

The late, great Bobby Jones pointed out that in the old days, the stymie rule helped to preserve the half-shot advantage.  If you hit two lousy shots and then hit a miraculous chip to four feet, while I was ten feet away in two, it would be relatively easy for me to EITHER make my putt OR stymie you from making yours by missing to the appropriate side, instead of having to make my putt to be certain of winning the hole.  Of course, the growing dominance of medal play [as insisted upon by good players, of course] made the stymie obsolete.

[Mark Pearce]

Anthony,

If your friend really is in the same place as a high handicapper who drove it 40 yards shorter then he's not much of a golfer.  Surely if he really was a skilled golfer he'd use the benefit of his drive to hit his approach closer.

[astavrides]

I think you meant 'cardinal', not 'ordinal', but after reading your original post four times, as well as the entirity of the link below, and thinking about it for an additional three hours, I'm not too sure, and any gumption I would have had to post on the substance of your question has vanished. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number

[Carl Johnson]

"I think better golfers find the ordinal scoring - whole numbers, no fractions . . . ."

George, maybe "integer," rather than "ordinal," would be a better word to use here?

"A low handicapper once told me that he thought Pacific Dunes was unfair to the low handicapper because the greens were too big. He said after a long drive he could find himself on the green in the same spot as a lesser golfer who drove the ball 40 yards less after the approach shot."

Anthony, maybe your low handicapper friend should give up the game of golf and just enter long drive contests.

"Seeing someone miss a fairway by a country mile, only to watch that someone conjure up a miracle that reaches the green, and then watching helplessly as that 40 footer trickles in for birdie, while his own split fairway, stiffed iron to 10 feet then lips out, losing either a stroke or the hole has to really wear on one's belief system."

I've been on both sides.  Several years ago I put a dagger in the heart of a low-handicap opponent with what he called "the ugliest par he'd ever seen."  It's golf.  George, maybe billiards or bowling would be much better games for someone whose belief system can't stand up to golf.

"Hard luck.  Scoring as it is, Clark loses."

Bill, maybe (1) Clark should take up darts or (2) be a little more precise in where he lands his approaches.  He's got those two options, as I see it.

Maybe a scoring option "fix" would be "golf-nastics."  Assign degrees of difficulty [1] to different types of shots from the same lie.  Then multiple by "results points" [2] (based on such things as distance, holed shots, great placement, etc. and finally [3] by a fraction to two decimal places based on the perfection of the swing (e.g., the perfect swing would be a 1.0; Charles Barkley a 0.38).  The total score for each shot would be the result after [1] and [2] plus the result after [1], [2] and [3]. To determine the winner of a round, subtract the "golf-nastics" score from the traditional whole-number score -- low score wins.  Obviously I haven't had time to think this approach through completely, but it seems promising.

As to the architecture result, an excellent question.  For me, the great thing about the game is the infinite variety of courses and challenges.  I say "no fix" because it ain't broken.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, maybe (1) Clark should take up darts or (2) be a little more precise in where he lands his approaches.  He's got those two options, as I see it.

Carl, LOL, he hit the pin with his approach  How much more precise can you be? 

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony,

If your friend really is in the same place as a high handicapper who drove it 40 yards shorter then he's not much of a golfer.  Surely if he really was a skilled golfer he'd use the benefit of his drive to hit his approach closer.

  His point was that the couse played like a putting contest because the grrens were reseptive to long approaches. And both players would two putt. It is thought provoking. I am not sure how I see it.

  Anthony

[John Kirk]

The integral scoring system is integral to the game.  The better player will have a lower average score.  Even Mark McGwire and Frank Thomas hit triples every now and then.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
I understand what you are saying but I think it's more that those same players who bitch are the same ones who do not take the long view when it comes to golf. The half-pars and percentages are there, they are the individual ratings given to each hole and over time the guy who misses the fairway by a country mile yet comes up with birdies will pay for his transgressions. It's only an issue when he does it to the player who judges everything in the here and now, and forgets about time.

[Carl Johnson]

Bill, maybe (1) Clark should take up darts or (2) be a little more precise in where he lands his approaches.  He's got those two options, as I see it.

Carl, LOL, he hit the pin with his approach  How much more precise can you be? 

The way I look at it, hitting the pin is playing darts.  A "precise" golf approach should not hit the pin, because the result, as in Clark's case, could be quite bad.  A more precise shot would have landed short of the pin and then rolled up to and into the hole, or even better, landed in the hole on the fly (but then that's sort of like darts, too, isn't it).  Just a little fun here.

[Carl Johnson]

Anthony,

If your friend really is in the same place as a high handicapper who drove it 40 yards shorter then he's not much of a golfer.  Surely if he really was a skilled golfer he'd use the benefit of his drive to hit his approach closer.

  His point was that the couse played like a putting contest because the grrens were reseptive to long approaches. And both players would two putt. It is thought provoking. I am not sure how I see it.

  Anthony

Interesting.  I've never played a match in which both players always two-putted.

[Rich Goodale]

Interesting post, George.

I thnk that the ordinal/integral element of golf is not unique, per se (even the Behrian purists such as grouse shooters count the number of brace they kill each day).  I also do not think that "better" golfers really care too much about we hackers trundling our balls onto the green from distant or strange positions, as they know that class will eventually show through, as it almost always does.

What does rankle them (and me, even, when I am relatively "better" than my opponent)  is the strange concept of the "handicap."  If a good player hits to within 20 feet of the pin in two and his opponent scrambles there to 4 feet in four, but net two, the "player" (he or she) does not consider golf to be a game or even a sport, but rather a lottery.  Which it is (IMO) when you play off handicaps.

Otherwise, all is fine with the game.

Rich

[Sean_A]

Interesting post, George.

I thnk that the ordinal/integral element of golf is not unique, per se (even the Behrian purists such as grouse shooters count the number of brace they kill each day).  I also do not think that "better" golfers really care too much about we hackers trundling our balls onto the green from distant or strange positions, as they know that class will eventually show through, as it almost always does.

What does rankle them (and me, even, when I am relatively "better" than my opponent)  is the strange concept of the "handicap."  If a good player hits to within 20 feet of the pin in two and his opponent scrambles there to 4 feet in four, but net two, the "player" (he or she) does not consider golf to be a game or even a sport, but rather a lottery.  Which it is (IMO) when you play off handicaps.

Otherwise, all is fine with the game.

Rich

I don't think the flat bellies worry too much about the short term play of a lesser skilled opponent.  Usually, quality comes thru, if not in one match, then the next. 

Rich
I can understand your pain concerning caps.  This new CONGU deal whereby singles matches are played at full difference is rather painful and doesn't really work when there are large differences in caps.  I had to give a guy 16 shots this weekend.  IMO, this is too many no matter how a cap system works.  With the old 3/4s I felt I had a chance, but in calm conditions with the oppo getting shots on the par 3s I knew I was in trouble.  But thats life.  If I want to do something about I need to get down to scratchish and eliminate capping altogether.  That ain't likely to happen since I enjoy practicing about as much as I enjoy watching the Wings lose.  The other alternative is to put up with what at times can be outrageous gifts of shots. 

Yes, I lost the match, 3 & 1.  In old money, I win 2 & 1.  Off flat, it was no contest and honestly not worth playing competitively.  So I fully agree with the idea of caps in our imperfect world, but somehow it needs to be controlled better. 

Ciao     

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

That "CONGU deal" of singles being played at full handicap came in 10+ years ago.  On what planet have you been playing in the interim?

Rich

[Sean_A]

Sean

That "CONGU deal" of singles being played at full handicap came in 10+ years ago.  On what planet have you been playing in the interim?

Rich

CONGU recommended it some time ago as you suggest, but in the past few years many clubs have actually taken up the recommendation - not without some resisitance. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

That "CONGU deal" of singles being played at full handicap came in 10+ years ago.  On what planet have you been playing in the interim?

Rich

CONGU recommended it some time ago as you suggest, but in the past few years many clubs have actually taken up the recommendation - not without some resisitance. 

Ciao

Sean

At my clubs (Royal Dornoch and Aberdour) we have been playing full differential for well over 10 years.  MittelIngerland seeems to be more than well behind the times.  'Tis a pity she's a bore....

Rich

[George Pazin]

I think you meant 'cardinal', not 'ordinal', but after reading your original post four times, as well as the entirity of the link below, and thinking about it for an additional three hours, I'm not too sure, and any gumption I would have had to post on the substance of your question has vanished. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number

You trust wikipedia over this math major?

Good call, set theory and number theory were never my strong areas...

In truth, I thought integral was the best word by definition, but didn't like it's other meanings, so I took some artistic license.

[George Pazin]

George,
I understand what you are saying but I think it's more that those same players who bitch are the same ones who do not take the long view when it comes to golf. The half-pars and percentages are there, they are the individual ratings given to each hole and over time the guy who misses the fairway by a country mile yet comes up with birdies will pay for his transgressions. It's only an issue when he does it to the player who judges everything in the here and now, and forgets about time.

Excellent post, this comes closest to my own views (which are of course excellent by definition... ).

I also like Sully's simple solution.

Rich, I've never really understood the point of playing with handicaps, but can't say I care much what others do. One of my few steady playing partners from 10 years ago and I always play even up, despite the fact that he's a good ten strokes better than me. I figure the match play thing helps me enough, any more and I'd feel like I was begging. Of course, I pretty much always lose to him, but it makes the occasional win that much sweeter.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, George - I was going to compliment Jim on his post, too. I especially like this half-phrase: "...The player who judges everything in the here and now, and forgets about time."  It's a lovely line, and the best kind of poetry, i.e. the un-intentional kind.

The truth is that on any course, on every course -- punishing or forgiving, undulating or flat, long or short --  the better player will beat the lesser one time and time again, with pretty much equal regularity regardless of the nature of the field of play.  I think architects know this too; but some just decide, with the owner/developer, to cater to perceptions and ego instead.

Peter

[Carl Johnson]

Rich, I've never really understood the point of playing with handicaps, but can't say I care much what others do. [/quote]

One of the neat things about golf.  You have many, many choices: match play, medal play; with and without handicaps; wolfman; snake; and so on.  There's something for just about every taste.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()