Why aren't golf courses like books?

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Golf courses are mind-numbingly standardized.  It seems every effort is expended to create a playing field where golfers will shoot a similar score, on a similar length course, of a similar "difficulty".  Heck, the PGA Tour goes even further with all this babble about a "true test" and a "tough but fair" setup.

What's up with that?

If we look at a bookshelf, each book can be compared to a golf course.  Yet no one is making these all of similar subjects.  No one is trying to say that a book must be a certain size or of a certain number of pages.  That are 700 page book is "too long", or that a 100 page book is "too short".  We don't judge a book by its thickness.  We don't say that a book must have 18 chapters, and that the last one must be dramatic or "long" or whatever.

Taken to golf courses, this analogy means that we should be able to built courses that are 2,000 yards and 10,000 yards just as readily.  There can be a 25-hole course, ranging from 40 yarders to 1600 yarders.  That if one shoots 56, it doesn't mean it's "too easy", or shooting 112 is "too hard".  And golf courses should have totally different feels, different number of holes, different difficulty, pars, etc... etc...

In other words, each golf course should be different from the next, much in the same way a each hole is different from the next.

Courses should be more like books.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

How would you establish a global standard scale for reading comprehension for every book read ?

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Pat,

I'm afraid you lost me.

[APBernstein]

The fact of the matter is that golf courses are golf courses and books are books.  There is an inherent different between the two.  I would not, ever, want to play the Par 98 War and Peace Golf Club.  However, from time to time, the short course at Pine Valley, or the Dr. Seuss of golf courses, is a lot of fun.

Some things are a certain way just because that is the way they were, are, and will always be.  Golf courses will continue to average around 6,500-7,000 yards, hopefully.

Golf courses will always have 18 holes, at least as long I am alive, and that, hopefully, is awhile longer.

That's just how things are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

golf is a competitive game for most.

They either compete against the golf course or
other golfers.

Against the golf course, par is the standard to compete against.

Against fellow competitors, your medal score, or hole by hole tally determines the winner.

How do you create competitive standards to compete, against the book, and against fellow readers ?

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Patrick,

Honestly, I'm still puzzled by what you're saying, but I'll give it a go:

Nothing would change.

Playing against your fellow competitor, you'd compare your score to his.  I shot 53, you shot 51.  You win.

Playing against the golf course is really playing against yourself.  Last week, I shot 134.  Today I shot 129.  I'm happy.  Or, if I've never played the course, I'm a 10 handicapper, the Course rating is 92 and I broke 100, I'm also happy.

Think of the Tour de France.  The stages there (which can be compared to golf courses for golfers) range in length from, oh... 50km to 300km, and the terrain is anything from the plains of the Northwest to the mountains of the Pyrenees.  Yet this doesn't impeed the cyclist from challenging the road as well as each other.

I obviously still believe that "par" is entirely useless, but for the sake of this argument, let me ask you:  Why can't "par" be 41 for one course and 97 for another?  Why would these courses be considered "too difficult" or "too easy", or "unfit" for a so-called "test of golf"?

Andrew,

Yes, I agree.  It always was, is, and probably will be.

The question I'm asking is "why?"

"because" isn't an answer.  Never was, isn't and never will be.  

[Craig Rokke]

The greens at Tattersall are as flat as an open book page.
Does that count?  

[APBernstein]

Jeremy:

It is my contention that these vast comparisons are a detriment to any argument.  The Tour de France is NOTHING like golf.  That is bicycle racing and this is golf.  Comparing stages to golf courses or holes is useless and silly.

I'm still sticking with "because".  Golf is the way it is after years of evolution.  Obviously, St. Andrews being shortened to 18 holes was a major change.  As have been the equipment changes over time.

If you want to build a 23 hole par 97, go right ahead.  If you want to build a 6 hole par 22, be my guest.  It could be the best 23 hole course in the world, but I think the competition may be light.

I like my golf in 18 holes personally, or 36 if I get started early enough.

Its just tradition.  There is no other way to say it.

[RJ_Daley]

Andrew, I disagree that courses always will be 18 holes of about 6500-7100 yards.   However, my disagreement is on shaky grounds to be sure.  Of course in the begining, there was no magical meaning attached to 9 or 18.  There are (or so I've heard) a couple of courses in AZ and other areas in the southlands that are like 12 holes.  As the majority of the population ages, I wouldn't discount the notion of some other attempts to find that niche market of shorter loops of 6 holes, 12, or some other number.  

I have thought that the idea of a course routing that had one of the traditional 9s with an extra 4 holes option at a fork in the route at the 9th hole of that side so to speak, where upon at the players option, they would play 12 holes on that side then play the back 9, or viseversa.  But they could also stop at 12 for the day if they were pressed for time.  A 22 hole faclity may have some merit.  I know, the staggered differece between those opting to go another 4 holes at the turn would wreak havoc and may only be practical for the back side.  I haven't got all the details worked out in my little head.

But, along the lines of Jeremy's original question, it occurs to me that there might be a 'rule of thumb' standard that modern publishers of books or periodical articles impose as to length.  Standardization in books for length, or periodical articles for number of 250 words may tend to homogenise the process of presenting ideas and tend to impose a certain format of writing.  Couldn't such confining standards play out in homogenising the designs of golf courses be in play?  The old conventional wisdom VS original thinking.   I hope Dan 'the Editor' chimes in on this. He might have some analogy.  

Editted for an afterthought:  This all reminds me of a couple of books I enjoyed a few years ago.  One was sort of a biography chronicalling the life of the brilliant Professor Richard Feynman, called something like 'Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman!", the other was a sort of autobiographical memoire by Dr Feynman called, "What Do You Care What People Think".  Both really brought home how a real genius is able to think unconventionally to solve a problem.  In a way, approaching GCA may require some unconventional thinking in years to come if it is going to remain fresh and appeal to new players.  

[Richard_Goodale]

I wholly agree with you Jeremy, and have argued a similar position before on this site, but, until one of us wins the lottery and can fund these dreams, I suspect that inertia, fear and "tradition" will drown out vitually all attempts at injecting some true creativity into golf course design.....

[Mike O'Neill]

Jeremy and Rich,

This is very interesting. I like to ask the question, "When the flood waters rise to a certain point, do you see the ravine as half full or half empty?" (That's just me flop-flipping an old cliche.) You must obviously see the waters on the rise (or the glass half-empty as it were) while I see that there is still time to get the women and children onto high ground. What I am saying is that I actually feel ALMOST the exact opposite of what you do. I think golf totally distinguishes itself as a game in the very way that you suggest it falls short. Name one other game with so very much variety. Yes, courses are almost always 18 holes. But they span every conceiveable type of terrain and climatic condition. Without going on and on here, there is just so much richness to the game. And by the way, golf, a book made up of 18 chapters if you will, has a new beginning and ending every time you turn the page. If you don't like the way the story ended on the final hole today, start on page one again tomorrow. You don't get that luxury in a book.

Also, remember, we have par 3 courses and executive courses floating around out there also. Some with cows who have right of way and right of first refusal. Does Dick have to break out the Nebraska photos again?  

[Mike O'Neill]

Jeremy and Rich,

The reason I capitalized the word "ALMOST" above is that I really have no problem with the idea that a golf course might have 13 or 24 or 7 holes. That would certainly not matter to me. When I am playing well, I prefer the course have somewhere around 75 holes if possible.  

[APBernstein]

And with that, I realize just how much better Mike O'Neill conveyed my sentiments.  I just couldn't come up with words for an argument that made any sense and Mike has taken care of that for me.  Thanks Mike.

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike and Andrew

I don't realy see any ravine at all.  I love the game we got, or I wouldn't be on this site.  I just wonder if having a little more variety, on some courses, might not make it even better.  And, I'm not talking about exeutive or par-3 courses, but ones, as Jeremy suggests that might have a parr 7 or 8 thrown in along with a 25 yard flop shot hole over that ravine, if it exists, interspersed with "traditional" golf holes, on a course, perhaps, outside the narrow 6000-7500, 18-hole box that the game now resides in.

It's a nice warm and fuzzy box, though, isn't it?

[APBernstein]

Rich:

I just don't see the need.  I will explain.

First off, I would be more inclined to agree with your 25 yard flop hole as opposed to the par 7 or 8, which I'm pretty sure I would become bored of after 5 or 6 shots.

The way I see, that 25 yard flop hole exists in golf, as the second shot on a good short par 4.  Those (20-60 pitches)are the most fun shots, in my opinion.

I am not one to say there is enough variety in golf and that there is no room (or need) for more.  However, I think there is plenty of room for variety in the confines of the "traditional" system.  And these confines are not very constrictive either, as golf is the sport with absolutely the most variety.  No other sport even comes close.

As far as discussion on this board goes, I think the current format for golf works better for us.  It would be difficult to compare a golf course that had eight par 12's as opposed to a course with 4 holes, all measuring under 100 yards.  A bit of an extreme example, but for comparative purposes, I like 18.

I guess I'm just a fan of golf and understand why it is such a great game: variety.  There could be "more" variety, but at what point does that become variety for the sake of itself?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

How would you establish equitable handicaps for one set of players who play your par 41 and another set who plays your par 97, and other golfers who play courses that range from par 18 to par 123 ?

You need to use your time to pursue other activities, including wine, women and song, rather than pursuing altering a standard accepted for centuries.  The winter can do strange things to people confined indoors in the far north.

But that's just my opinion.

[Richard_Goodale]

Andrew

You may have missed the thread we had last year on Par-6 holes.  On that thread, several of us realized that far from being "boring" such holes could have multiple go for it/lay up options, and many shifts in strategy/tactics required depending on the results of the previous shot.  I described in detail how great a par-6 could be made from a hole starting on the 7th tee at Dornoch and continuing on to the 8th green.  Think out of the box and you can imagine some great, great golf holes of 700 yards +.

Patrick

Your handicapping issue is a non-issue.  The math is simple and the process would not be radically different than what now goes in USGA or R&A systems.

[Mike O'Neill]

Rich,

It is good to have imagination. I too have often thought about what it would mean to build a par 9. How to make that from a strategic point of view. Currently, it is very rare for a golfer to do anything but move to shorter clubs as he/she moves through a golf hole. How about a golf hole that might require a drive, a three wood, a five iron, a wedge, and then another three wood? But it is at about this point in my thinking that the idea starts to wobble a little and I start dreaming of something else. It is fun to dream those dreams however. Don't stop. As for Jeremy's "mind-numbing standardized" comment, I'll have none of that just yet.

By the way, there is a ravine. I saw it in the Pasatiempo #16 picture--clear as day.

[APBernstein]

Rich:

How about a compromise, eh?

You can have your 700 yard hole, but we will still call it a par 5 and everyone can make bogey.  That will satisfy the old-fogey in me, you will get your great 700 yard hole, and will satisfy everyone upset about how truely useless par is; sounds like a win-win-win, right?  

[Peter Galea]

Golf courses ARE just like books, after all we have to read greens and some players are better "readers" than others.

For mind-numbingly standard take a look at all other games.
All standard fields or boards. I've never seen two golf courses which are even close to the same.

[Richard_Goodale]

Pete

You are right.  But, I've also never seen a "Classic Comic Book" that was the same.  The all have a different story, different cover, different author, etc., even though they have roughly the same length and the same basic "look and feel."  I (as I am sure is, Jeremy) am fully aware that this is all mostly a "thought exercise", but I think it is an interesting one, in the following way:

--IF you believe that golf is becoming less interesting, through technology, conditioning (personal and agronomic), or whatever, one way of adding a bit of spice would be to REALLY play with the minds of players.  Let Andrew think that he is playing a "par 5" but then wonder why his 3rd and 4th shots might just be wedge, 3-wood.  Have the pro, in the middle of a stretch of brutal but similar 450 yard holes be confronted with a 35-yard hole with 5-6 options of getting the ball near the pin.  Ask any golfer to think, on the day, that "par" is 47, or 94, or whatever else might rattle their mental models of what "golf" is all about.

At the end of the day, is golf about some mythical mathematical series of 1, 4, 18, 72, 288 .......... , or is it about hitting golf shots to golf holes?

PS--I know this is all impractical, but I will not stop dreaming.  Thanks for recognizing this, Mike.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Of course, as Rich mentionned, this is purely a theoretical problem.  I don't think that in my life time I'll see such change.

But the question remains.  If variety is so admired, desirable and pursued, why do we erect so many arbitrary barriers to true creativity?

Oh well, call me a dreamer or call me a fool...


Patrick,

 

I still don't know what the problem is.  Maybe you need to explain it like I'm a six year old.