[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,
NO NO NO. Playing it forward means choosing the right set of tees. At that point you can choose match play or stroke play.
I'm not an Opus Dei type on the golf course.

Pete,

Does that mean that you're advocating that golfers abandon the challenge ?

[Brent Hutto]

Imagine a two mile long stretch of links land. You have a club and a ball that you want to knock from one end to the other and back again. You're going to do this every day with a friend and you want to make a little match out of it.

Before you go out you send ahead a guy with a 4-1/2" hole cutter and he can cut as many holes as you like. One choice is to dig a hole every 100 yards or so. You and your friend will basically hit the ball once, stop and roll it into the hole, hit it again, stop and roll it, etc. about 30 times in each direction. By the end of the day most people would figure it is better to do more whacking and less stopping to roll the ball into the little hole.

Next day you tell him to cut three holes, one at each end and one halfway. So it is hit, hit, hit, keep hitting for quite a while then stop and roll the ball into the halfway hole. Then repeat the whole process the turn around and do it in reverse. Pretty boring stuff.

After a few weeks of doing this every day you will probably discover that mixing it up a bit instead of evenly spacing the holes is the most fun of all. And you may quite likely find that having somewhere in the neighborhood of a ratio with two whacks in a row, on average, before stopping to roll the ball into the hole (not counting flubbed shots in that average) works really well for your little game.

It just worked out that way as a contingent fact of the history off golf. Some other arrangements could be fun as well but the most people seem to get the most enjoyment from a variety of lengths with two whacks on average before stopping to putt.

[Garland Bayley]

Brent,

I like your experiment. The part I don't like is the counting of strokes.

It would seem there would be less optimal divisions of length as you mention. A hole every 100 yards would make it a more of putting contest than a Golfe match. Only two holes would not provide enough decision points for a proper Golfe match. It would be more like stroke play, where you have to wait until the very end to settle the drama. In the early years of golf, the number of divisions in the 2 miles out, 2 miles back that most seemed to gravitate towards was 18. TOC was 22, but apparently that was too many as they eliminated some of the holes so that the remaining holes on average were longer. And this was done at a time with a technology the dictated a high percentage of these 18 holes would take three shots to reach with a feathery.

As I pointed out earlier, some golden age architects debated eliminating 6 more greens to lessen the prevalence of putting. I suppose there by that time had developed a certain momentum to 18 holes being the standard, and perhaps folks quite like 18 mini dramas over a lessening to 12.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

Which Morris was James’ caddie on that day? So far my records only go back to 1645 to a Thomas Morris as I would like to find out how many clubs were used on that day by the late King.

Melvyn

PS No matter the number of Holes on a courses, the competition number seems to have revolve around the number 36. So Prestwick required 3 rounds, other courses 4 rounds etc. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
NO NO NO. Playing it forward means choosing the right set of tees. At that point you can choose match play or stroke play.
I'm not an Opus Dei type on the golf course.

Pete,

Does that mean that you're advocating that golfers abandon the challenge ?

Patrick,
Certainly it COULD mean that, but it isn't the most likely explanation.  I'm getting older, and though I'm still a 5 hdcp. these days when I play courses above 6800 yds., there isn't much variety to what I hit on second shots.  I love my 5 wood and consider myself to be pretty good with it, but I get tired of only hitting 5 woods.  In my case, more variety is more fun, whether or not it changes my score.

[Steve Strasheim]

Garland,

Sometimes I just don't get things around here. Please help me understand.

Tee It Forward is a good initiative that from my perspective has no downside. Yet, you call it the antithesis of real golf, making it sound like a negative development. What is the downside of this program?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Sometimes I just don't get things around here. Please help me understand.

Tee It Forward is a good initiative that from my perspective has no downside. Yet, you call it the antithesis of real golf, making it sound like a negative development. What is the downside of this program?

Tee It Forward plays into the scorecard mentality. It makes you value golf for being able to score low. It does not make you value golf for getting to the course and playing a back and forth match with your peers. It is oriented to the players that hit it straight and will reach greens with "the same clubs a tour pro would" if they play it forward. It ignores the core of golf. It ignores the average player that does not hit it straight, and might improve his score from 100 to 96 if he moves forward. It not only ignores this average player, it alienates him. He has been very happy playing a set of tees with his friends, most likely by playing match play. It tells him he is not welcome to play the game as he loves it. It tells him there are people out there with a disapproving attitude towards him when he tees it up where he wants to.

IMO the PGA should be promoting "Play it hole-by-hole" instead of "Tee It Forward". Play it hole-by-hole makes no value judgement about players and where they play from. Average players are very aware that the better players don't wish to play with them, without having better players dictating to them how they should play a course.

I haven't been across the pond to play, but it seems to me "Tee It Forward" would have little meaning there, because many of the courses come with two sets of tees instead of five or six.

In short, "Tee It Forward" is a short sighted program devised by a bunch of straight hitters (the PGA) showing disdain for the average player. But, yet there are many average players that play faster than PGA members involved in their six-sigma process to shoot 71 instead of 72.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

Your length advantage off the tee wasn't why I lost last time at Chambers, cause you were spraying it just as much as I was and in trouble just as much. #11 was the only hole you had any kind of real advantage based on tee shot length. Just wanted to keep the record straight. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Your length advantage off the tee wasn't why I lost last time at Chambers, cause you were spraying it just as much as I was and in trouble just as much. #11 was the only hole you had any kind of real advantage based on tee shot length. Just wanted to keep the record straight. 

I made no indication that I have a length advantage. All I indicated is that you choose tees other than Tee It Forward would indicate you and I should. Do you think our match was any less fun because we had to hit long clubs for second shots on some of the par 4s? I personally don't think it would make a difference at all. I played some of the par 4s as three shotters, because I was measuring my progress against you, not against par.

[Steve Strasheim]

Garland, I believe you have put the horse before the cart.

Tee it forward is an equal opportunity program. Match play, stroke play, or no card at all. It is just designed to help people enjoy the game more by playing faster, loosing fewer balls and yes, not having so many big numbers on their card, should they choose to keep one.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

Your length advantage off the tee wasn't why I lost last time at Chambers, cause you were spraying it just as much as I was and in trouble just as much. #11 was the only hole you had any kind of real advantage based on tee shot length. Just wanted to keep the record straight. 

I made no indication that I have a length advantage. All I indicated is that you choose tees other than Tee It Forward would indicate you and I should. Do you think our match was any less fun because we had to hit long clubs for second shots on some of the par 4s? I personally don't think it would make a difference at all. I played some of the par 4s as three shotters, because I was measuring my progress against you, not against par.

Its all good, just making sure. 

P.S  I did feel comfortable playing from the tees that we did.  A few holes were long, but they would have been long from the next set of tees as well.  The only hole that was brutal was 14 and that long carry to the fairway.

[Joe Stansell]

Garland or Kalen:

1.  For your match at Chambers Bay, which tees did you play from?
2.  Did you play the game by "Playing the Odd" and then "Playing the Like"?
3.  If not, why not?

And Garland, I agree that it would be proper for the USGA to encourage match play, not medal play. But I applaud them for encouraging golfers to tee off from a location appropriate for their skill, just the same as ski hills have green runs, blue runs, and black diamond runs.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
The number of assumptions that you made in your last post is staggering.  

One is the blanket assumption that you make that the mass of golfers are playing competitive matches of some sort.  Beyond that, the match is one in which a "straight hitter" is opposed by a "better" golfer, as if those are mutually exclusive terms.  I see absolutely NO reason to believe that either of these assumptions are true.  The simplest explanation of the tee it forward idea, as well as the most common application, is that golf is just more fun for most players if they don't try to play a course that is simply too long, rather than as a way of equalizing competitions.

Then you really take a leap of logic with the implied assumption that the "straight hitter" and the presumably "better player" will be able to compete equally at match play if they play from the same tees, but that somehow that is lost if the "straight hitter" moves up.  Of course, you know that the first part isn't true; the handicap system exists for that very reason!

So you've arbitrarily decided that the correct way to adjust is through awarded strokes, rather than reducing distance, and, in fact, that IS the most common way to adjust in competition.

But it is NOT the only way; the USGA publishes handicap adjustments for players playing a competition from different tees.  They are rarely used, but they are available.

You strike me as being HIGHLY competitive, as am I.  But I recognize that many, if not most, golfers are not nearly so competitive and would be well served to play a more enjoyable golf course without a stigma attached.  That's what the tee it forward "movement" is about, and nothing else.  

Now try to relax.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, I believe you have put the horse before the cart.

Tee it forward is an equal opportunity program. Match play, stroke play, or no card at all. It is just designed to help people enjoy the game more by playing faster, loosing fewer balls and yes, not having so many big numbers on their card, should they choose to keep one.

Guess I don't see your point. If it were an equal opportunity program, there would only be one tee.

As I stated above, and now will state more adamantly, this playing faster claim is a whole bunch of BS! What Tee It Forward means is more walking and less playing.

Losing fewer balls is also BS. Those players that hit it off line do not hit if off line and lose balls because of the tees they are playing.

Furthermore, truly big numbers on the card are caused by tops, laying sod over the ball, huge slices or hooks, pulls or pushes, bladed chips, chili dipped chips, fat pitches, etc. None of which are avoided by Tee It Forward.

[Tom Yost]

Garland,

98% of American golfers play stroke play.  To disparage the Tee It Forward initiative because it doesn't promote match play is misguided.

[Garland Bayley]

Joe,

I'm pretty sure we didn't play navy, so we must have played sand. Perhaps Kalen remembers for sure. We played with a pair of good young golfers (a GCAer and his brother), and Kalen readily agreed we would play the tees of their choosing.

We played match play. With me that is done by watching my opponents progress through the hole an comparing to it. Essentially that is playing the odd, playing the like, without using the terminology.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

98% of American golfers play stroke play.  To disparage the Tee It Forward initiative because it doesn't promote match play is misguided.

Source please.

[Joe Stansell]

We played match play. With me that is done by watching my opponents progress through the hole an comparing to it. Essentially that is playing the odd, playing the like, without using the terminology.

Now be honest. There was at least one hole where you or Kalen said something like, "you got a four, right"? Because when I play match play (which I prefer far and away to medal play), I've never said, "now your's was the odd, right?"

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
The number of assumptions that you made in your last post is staggering.  

One is the blanket assumption that you make that the mass of golfers are playing competitive matches of some sort.  

The assumption based on my experience is as I have indicated for players that regularly get together for their perhaps weekly game. Although these are not formal competitions, they are often played in match format for a sum of money. Try playing with Bob Huntley for example and not being engaged in a game of wolf.

Beyond that, the match is one in which a "straight hitter" is opposed by a "better" golfer, as if those are mutually exclusive terms.  I see absolutely NO reason to believe that either of these assumptions are true.  The simplest explanation of the tee it forward idea, as well as the most common application, is that golf is just more fun for most players if they don't try to play a course that is simply too long, rather than as a way of equalizing competitions.

I don't understand what you are saying here, let alone understand how you got it from what I wrote. Please explain to me where I ever mentioned, or led you to believe I was discussing "equalizing competitions".

Then you really take a leap of logic with the implied assumption that the "straight hitter" and the presumably "better player" will be able to compete equally at match play if they play from the same tees, but that somehow that is lost if the "straight hitter" moves up.  Of course, you know that the first part isn't true; the handicap system exists for that very reason!

Again you baffle me.

So you've arbitrarily decided that the correct way to adjust is through awarded strokes, rather than reducing distance, and, in fact, that IS the most common way to adjust in competition.

Where have I ever mentioned "awarded strokes"?

But it is NOT the only way; the USGA publishes handicap adjustments for players playing a competition from different tees.  They are rarely used, but they are available.

You strike me as being HIGHLY competitive, as am I.  But I recognize that many, if not most, golfers are not nearly so competitive and would be well served to play a more enjoyable golf course without a stigma attached.  That's what the tee it forward "movement" is about, and nothing else.  

There are lots of hot highly competitive people that engage in a match for a small monetary amount to keep it interesting. Others need a large monetary amount to keep it interesting.

Now try to relax.

[Garland Bayley]

We played match play. With me that is done by watching my opponents progress through the hole an comparing to it. Essentially that is playing the odd, playing the like, without using the terminology.

Now be honest. There was at least one hole where you or Kalen said something like, "you got a four, right"? Because when I play match play (which I prefer far and away to medal play), I've never said, "now your's was the odd, right?"

Did I not just write "without using the terminology". Seldom when I finish a hole do I need to ask my opponents strokes as I have been comparing all along the way whether I was even with him, one up, or one down in strokes taken. Only when Kalen takes big detours from the normal line of play am I not sure what he has taken, but I am sure that I won the hole.

[Kalen Braley]

I just double checked their website and we played the Sand Tees, which are listed at 6400 yards.  While a few holes like 11 and 14 were a bit long for me....none of them were overwhelming or too much for my game at that length.  Certainly if we had played the Navy tees at 7000+ that would have been brutal.

Overall though, despite the loss I still had tons of fun, and I really love match play.  It seems the only place I can get it in is at GCA.com events, so it makes attending those all the better.

[Garland Bayley]

I just double checked their website and we played the Sand Tees, which are listed at 6400 yards.  While a few holes like 11 and 14 were a bit long for me....none of them were overwhelming or too much for my game at that length.  Certainly if we had played the Navy tees at 7000+ that would have been brutal.

Overall though, despite the loss I still had tons of fun, and I really love match play.  It seems the only place I can get it in is at GCA.com events, so it makes attending those all the better.

Couldn't figure how you got 6400. Then I realized you must have used the yardage with the alternative green hole for 5. We didn't play that. We played the 6541.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Match play from tees that are further back than I should play is boring. It means drive, n * whack, approach, putt. Where is the strategy in that whack-phase? If my opponent hits his drive into trouble, then how can I take advantage of that? I still need to n * whack as far as I can. It doesn't do me any good to hit a safe shot instead of a whack, because my approach will then either become a whack or I'll need an additional whack before approaching and have just let my opponent back into the hole.

In my eyes the right set of tees to play from are those, where the number of whacks is not more than half the number of drives. Otherwise it's too much whacking and too little strategy and variety.

Ulrich

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

Thanks for the correction, you're right, it was the longer distance at 6500...

Ulrich,

While I can't argue that, the reality is when you have two high cappers, it just doesn't matter cause we always retain the right/lack the ability to mess up a 100 yard wedge shot, just as much as a longer 3w shot.  I can't help that Garland had two very lucky and uncharacteristically Tiger-esque chip shots during our match that in one case won the hole for him, and another led to a miraculous halve...them is just the breaks!! 

[Garland Bayley]

Match play from tees that are further back than I should play is boring. It means drive, n * whack, approach, putt. Where is the strategy in that whack-phase? If my opponent hits his drive into trouble, then how can I take advantage of that? I still need to n * whack as far as I can. It doesn't do me any good to hit a safe shot instead of a whack, because my approach will then either become a whack or I'll need an additional whack before approaching and have just let my opponent back into the hole.

In my eyes the right set of tees to play from are those, where the number of whacks is not more than half the number of drives. Otherwise it's too much whacking and too little strategy and variety.

Ulrich

That's why Brent's two hole course is not what we are talking about. We are not considering the case where n approaches infinity and the limit of enjoyment is zero. Instead we are talking about very small n where an opponent in trouble does not require 1 more whack as far as I can.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()