How do we get golf back to the Game...

[Jim Sweeney]

Kyle-

If you have trouble following the "mandate" as expressed in this thread, good! Because no such "mandate" exists.

The problem you have is that there would be no pre-determined course rating if you proceeded as you described. You should, in that circumstance, determine a temporary rating based on the tables in the back of the handicap manual. It's not perfect, but there is no better alternative.

[Jason Connor]

As a statistician, you don't need a course rating.  In fact, I think course ratings aren't the optimal way to factor out course difficulty.

What's a better measure of difficulty:  (a) an individual or small group coming out and walking the course for a day and thinking about the hazards then declaring 74.2 CR and 128 slope?  And then of course that doesn't ever change (or rarely does it change); or (b) thousands of actual rounds of play by golfers with varying handicaps?

Almost all of us play a variety of courses.  That means the USGA, if they wanted, could take all of our scores, put them in a big computer, and calculate course ratings and slopes more accurately based upon actual data.  They couldn't do this is we all only played our home course.  But given we wander about, our handicaps could be correctly adjusted.

Sorry that's off topic, but CR/slope annoys me since it's suboptimally calculated in this day & age.

[Kyle Harris]

Again, WITHOUT USING ANECDOTE where is the meat of the Match v. Stroke pace of play?

How has it proven to be the more significant factor than other behaviors and practices relating to pace of play such as the four I outlined?

[Tom_Doak]

1. Play the proper tee
2. Focus on advancing the game within your group (this is huge, I firmly believe that all pace of play has to do with the focus of the player in being attentive and ready)
3. Putt until the ball is holed unless one would substantially disrupt another's line of putt.
4. WALK

Kyle:

Your first two issues are addressed by the preference of match play over stroke play.  If you are playing a match, which tee you play from takes on less significance, so you are more likely to play from the proper tee.  And you are more likely to advance the game within your group if you are paying attention to your opponent, instead of adding up how many over par you are.

Your third issue is also sometimes addressed when putts are conceded.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Again, WITHOUT USING ANECDOTE where is the meat of the Match v. Stroke pace of play?

How has it proven to be the more significant factor than other behaviors and practices relating to pace of play such as the four I outlined?

There's a big gulf between anecdotes and empirical evidence. 

[Kyle Harris]

1. Play the proper tee
2. Focus on advancing the game within your group (this is huge, I firmly believe that all pace of play has to do with the focus of the player in being attentive and ready)
3. Putt until the ball is holed unless one would substantially disrupt another's line of putt.
4. WALK

Kyle:

Your first two issues are addressed by the preference of match play over stroke play.  If you are playing a match, which tee you play from takes on less significance, so you are more likely to play from the proper tee.  And you are more likely to advance the game within your group if you are paying attention to your opponent, instead of adding up how many over par you are.

Your third issue is also sometimes addressed when putts are conceded.

Tom:

They're also addressed by being considerate. One could make flip arguments and say it doesn't matter if the tee is played from too far - since it's Match Play, and that by gaming your opponent too much you're paying attention to them. Furthermore, I could still conceivable make my opponent hole every last putt out if the match were close - and in fact, the more competitive matches would be more similar to Stroke Play than a Match that is won 6&5.

I have a hunch/theory that Match Play would be slowed down just as much as Stroke Play is now if it were the predominant form of play in the United States. We treat the game, Match or Stroke Play, as an activity - not a sport.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Paul,

You built the Orchard Creek GC in Altamont, NY that I think is a very good example of the type of place that has good values. It's fun and can accomodate most every level of player yet it has many challenging moments that are well spread around the course, it's in a country setting but still close to civilization, it's Mom and Pop owned, it caters to the local clientlele, it's walkable and you can pay/play nine if that suits you, and it's a very good bargain.

Definitely the ideal type of place for a game.

[paul cowley]

Thanks Jim....I would build this type of course all year long....one that was built for 1.4M with Clubhouse [which I designed]...and my fee was 35K.

Golf as I think it should be.

[Mac Plumart]

What do y’all think of this…


The essence of golf must not be lost in a world where change outpaces perspective and winning is more important than honor.  More than most other games, golf has long been associated with honesty, good manners, and high standards of behavior. Golf should cherish that reputation and do all it can to keep it. Golf etiquette is part of it. So are the basic character building elements of playing the ball as it lies and accepting the occasional bad bounce of the ball.  Good manners must be universal. Honesty must be unquestioned. Courtesy should be automatic.


To answer Paul’s question, “How do we get golf back to the Game?”; focus on the items highlighted above.

FYI…the paragraph above isn’t from me.  I stumbled across it and a lot more today.  Frankly, I like it!

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Your post #21 pretty much shocks, disappoints and depresses me. What is all this garbage about Davis and Annika and "Baby Slope" courses and such teaching all the little pre-pub babies of the world things like nutrition and how to play the game or whatever? Jeeesus My Man, when I was six years old I was sucking the smoke outta cap pistols because I couldn't figure out how to score any cigs----or fags to the Brit kids. Actually amend that I did figure out how to score cigs when I was seven and take them down to the playhouse a half mile away. It was before that when cap pistols was the only way to smoke.

I say take away all their violent computer games and toys and give them subconsciously impressionable smoothy stuff like the old fashioned Saturday morning cartoons on TV before they're faced with their parents' hangovers on a Saturday after their crazy binges on the Friday night before.

You know just as well as I do that the real maturation process for any well adjusted American kid worth his M&Ms starts on Saturday around noon to 1pm when the parents have completely come to and rolled into action!

[Ben Sims]

For awhile now, I've been advancing my pinko-commie left-wing socialist view "pace of play is killing public golf" to complete strangers that I meet on the course.  Wyatt Halliday has even stopped making tee times with me for fear of the subject being broached with unsuspecting civilians.  

To the man--here's where I get serious friends--I have heard three responses from three demographics.  

1) Those over 50 have almost always agreed with me; said that they play less than they used to because it takes to long to play.  "It's not supposed to take all day," they say.

2) Those in the middle aged, family building, career building, 30-50 crowd have always--to the man--looked at me as if I'm nuts.  "It's an escape, an experience," they say.  They're paying for quality time with friends.  The more time spent at the course, the better.  Oh yeah, don't forget to putt that 3 footer for triple to keep the juice rolling to next hole boys!!

3) The under 30 crowd who--to the man--have always looked at me and wondered why I was even concerned.  They love playing.  Nine holes, 18 holes; just trying to hit good shots and save a little dough for other pursuits.  If it takes 5 hours, whatever. But if it takes 3 hours that's cool too.

I'm sure there are outliers in each demographic, I just can't find them anywhere but on this website.  

[David Whitmer]

Getting back to the game means getting back to playing it as the founders intended - ie) enjoying a walk through nature with your friends.
[/quote]

I certainly agree with that!

You and I could enjoy a round of golf together by walking the golf course, playing strictly by the rules, and playing from the set of tees we deem to be correct. All I'm saying is that other guys might "enjoy a walk through nature" by playing a set of tees that is too difficult for them, or by shooting a score of 130. I don't understand why a guy would come out and subject himself to that torture, but clearly many do. As long as they keep up and play strictly  by the rules when they're playing with me, I'm happy.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps the best way to leave this subject (or even continue it) may be found in the following article from The Scotsman on the 11th of December 1900 “The Future of Golf”




Lost the Spirit and tempted by the Devil, yea of little will power and fornicators of technology, have yea also lost your faith in your own natural abilities (by using aids). Verily I say unto you, yea have fallen for the very lies of Satan and condemned our glorious fields (courses) to the paths of deceit and debauchery (cart paths).

But then not much seems to have changed since 1900, except we have lost the bloody Empire – see what happens when you allow others the right of freedom of thought and the ability to use it – does the Devil ever tire, no because he too rides a cart instead of bloody walking.

May your God go with you.

Melvyn.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

I think you are dead wrong.  Playing from further back has to take longer unless the course is designed specifically to the back tees - which to be honest, I don't think I have ever seen.  To state you can step back and still wait is meaningless because those chaps could be slow and for sure, you would nearly always be quicker from forward tees.  Jeepers, often times I think this is the worst part of technology.  Guys who don't belong on 6700 yard tees now step back to 7000 yard tees - great.  There is a reason golf is quicker in the UK and a main one is players are compelled to play from shorter tees with tees closer to greens.  Its a no brainer, less walking means faster golf.

Ciao     

Sean,

I think you are dead wrong. What do you think we are talking about here? One foursome on the course only at a time?
Put one foursome of scratch golf grinders on the back tees, and I and some of my quick high handicap friends could play blind drives from over the hill behind the back tees and still be held up.

Sayonara

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...

I LOVE that article.  In fact it ties in perfectly with my 2nd to last post (#18) and I feel it is a nice dovetail to my last post (#33).

Now some will disagree, but that is fine.  Golf is a diverse game and people can play for diverse reasons.  But I certainly share those many of  the sentiments of that post.

Also, even though I am an American with military experience I take no offense to the seemingly negative comments on American golf.  Frankly, I think it might be correct. 

Weren't almost all of the Scottish courses public, community-centric, and the focal point of entertainment for an entire town or city?  And weren't most of the early American courses private?  Again, I am not trying to start a war of words or idealologies...as I am indeed a proud American...however, I find this distinction important and interesting.

Anyway, I re-iterate that taking a different mental attitude towards what the game is might help people enjoy the game more.  And for sure, I am very competitive in life, business, sports, etc.  But the two biggest joyous pastimes for me are golf and playing my guitar.  Both of which I try to improve and get better, but I am focused on enjoying the journey rather than myopically focused on a self-appointed goal (like a score or a handicap level).

In fact, I think I am changing my  goals for golf from handicap driven to behaviour driven.  I intially set handicap levels I wanted to achieve on a quarter by quarter basis when I first started playing with the idea of being scratch by year 5.  Thus far, I am a bit  ahead of  pace...but I think I am going to change my goals to 100%  observation of the rules and better etiquette on the course.   Now, I don't think I am an abomination on the golf  course, but many times the groups I play with take mulligans off the first tee and things like that and I still don't know all the rules relative to drops and I didn't know you couldn't repair spike marks on the green prior to last week.  But I will get better at these things this year and into the  future.

But don't mistake me for preaching to anyone...if people don't want to focus on what I think is important...that is fine.  I am not saying others need to do this...but I am going to...as I think it speaks to what the game is all about and how it should be played.

Thanks Melvyn.

[Jason McNamara]

2) Those in the middle aged, family building, career building, 30-50 crowd have always--to the man--looked at me as if I'm nuts.  "It's an escape, an experience," they say.  They're paying for quality time with friends.  The more time spent at the course, the better.  Oh yeah, don't forget to putt that 3 footer for triple to keep the juice rolling to next hole boys!! 

I've speculated about this in the past:  You can't make much progress trying to speed up people who are specifically interested in not speeding up.  And you probably have a fair number of people in the group you mentioned who are under orders from the boss to head home immediately after the round.  So if you can't hang out in the bar afterward, you spend an extra half hour on the course.  Gives the cart girl time to circle round once more.

Thanks for the real-world confirmation, even with the limited sample size.

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

On your post #37 I want to offer my hardiest and most sincere congratulations. Nobody can "Biblicise" a fairly mundane subject (golf) in the broad scheme of things, like you can. I'm certain there are more than a few who can and will buy into what you say and for those who can't or don't at least what you say is definitely entertaining.

Have you read any Max Behr, Melvyn? The reason I ask his he did say that when one learns to truly understand Nature and how to use and honor her in the art of natural golf architecture he has essentially entered into the realm of Religion. And Max also wrote a letter in the early 1920s stating that he felt that Hugh Wilson, by what he had done with Merion East, had essentially saved Mankind! H.I.W's only response was he thought he did a pretty good job but it never occured to him he had saved Mankind by it. 

[Mac Plumart]

Tom Paul...I take issue with you latest post!!!     Golf a fairly mundane topic!!!  Surely you jest!

With the Crane/Behr debates (and their specific issues on the topic), Behr's other writings, Mackenzie, MacDonald, card and pencil golfers, minimalists, Fazio, RTJ (and his sons), Tom Doak's Confidential Guide, Merion and its related threads on GCA, and Melvyn vs. the cartballers...I find it anything but mundane!!!   

In all seriousness, your quote (or paraphrase) from Behr on Wilson has inspired me to study up on Wilson.  And you are correct, Melvyn certainly has a way of putting things...and frankly it motivates me to understand the history of the game at a deeper and more fundamental level.

[Sean_A]

Garland

I think you are dead wrong.  Playing from further back has to take longer unless the course is designed specifically to the back tees - which to be honest, I don't think I have ever seen.  To state you can step back and still wait is meaningless because those chaps could be slow and for sure, you would nearly always be quicker from forward tees.  Jeepers, often times I think this is the worst part of technology.  Guys who don't belong on 6700 yard tees now step back to 7000 yard tees - great.  There is a reason golf is quicker in the UK and a main one is players are compelled to play from shorter tees with tees closer to greens.  Its a no brainer, less walking means faster golf.

Ciao     

Sean,

I think you are dead wrong. What do you think we are talking about here? One foursome on the course only at a time?
Put one foursome of scratch golf grinders on the back tees, and I and some of my quick high handicap friends could play blind drives from over the hill behind the back tees and still be held up.

Sayonara

Garland

You and your imaginary scratch 4ball are still going to the back tees.  That takes time.  Add it up over 18 holes, then add up all the trouble your slash master mates found because they played the back tees and I bet you could have been sipping your first beer (in the house) at LEAST 20 minutes earlier. Its not some sort of voo doo science.  Playing from 6300 yards is quicker than from 7000 yards.  Come on over to the UK and I will show you.  If you still think I am wrong, the first game at my club is on me. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul...I take issue with you latest post!!!     Golf a fairly mundane topic!!!  Surely you jest!"


No Sir, golf is not exactly a mundane thing, unless of course you consider it in the broad scheme of things, as I mentioned earlier. However, I think it is probably true to say if the leaders of the world totally read and carefully considered Max Behr's writing there would inevitably be a global honoring of Nature and peace and harmony on Earth for all time to come. If they read and carefully considered Joshua Crane, however, a nucleur holocaust would probably be inevitable in short order.

The ball is not vied for between human opponents, don't you know? Apparently Joshua didn't pick up on that picture but Max sure did! What world leaders of the future need to come to understand for starters is that the convex angle not the concave angle must be relied upon far more for future stability. Only in that way can we ever expect to inherit the crown----sorry, Crown.

[TEPaul]

"In all seriousness, your quote (or paraphrase) from Behr on Wilson has inspired me to study up on Wilson."


Before you study up on Wilson it might serve you well to study up on Behr first. Most believe Max Behr was a world-class Ding-bat and unfortunately it looks like it takes other world class Ding-bats to even begin to understand his remarkable brilliance and prescience!

[JMEvensky]

 unfortunately it looks like it takes other world class Ding-bats to even begin to understand his remarkable brilliance and prescience!

Does this mean that you do/don't understand Behr?

BTW-your presence is requested in the thread regarding best 3-hole stretches.A lot of us would like your side of the story regarding the Sand Hills trip.You don't come off well in Pat's re-telling.

[Melvyn Morrow]

He does not

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

I am currently reading all the Behr that I can find.  Thus far I've located 5 articles with with publication dates ranging from 1923-1952.

I certainly think I am "getting" him...and perhaps in a few areas I think I can that I do indeed "get" him.  But what I have found is that my third reading of his articles is when the lightbulb clicks on.  I think over the next few weeks, I will have completed my third reading of all 5 of these articles.

By that time my Fazio book should have arrived, which according to my interpretation Behr might call some of Mr. Fazio's work "freak" architecture.  But that is just how I see it.  FYI...I play Shadow Creek in 5 weeks.

This reminds me that Behr seems to imply that the course needs to fit the land and the land needs to fit the purpose for the sport of golf.  And this, indeed, remind me of Melvyn as you alluded to/mentioned previously.

And, if I may ramble some more, much of Behr recommendations sound like the minimalist movement today that C&C and Doak seem to be most associated with.  Again, interesting to me.  Perhaps they have discovered the "truth" that Behr refers to?

[TEPaul]

"And, if I may ramble some more, much of Behr recommendations sound like the minimalist movement today that C&C and Doak seem to be most associated with."



Apparently even if Behr moved a lot of earth it could be pretty hard for even an astute observer to tell. I'll find you a quote to that effect by Piper or Oakley. I think the remark was made about Lakeside.