News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2012, 09:11:40 PM »
Melvyn,

I love the bulk of your opening post.  Golf is, indeed, something very special.  And I get that it means different things to everyone and it is felt at different levels by everyone.  I don't begrudge the people who play for competition.  They enjoy it, it makes the game speical for them...good for them...I tip my cap to them and applaud them.  Other people play it for a stroll in the park, a break from the daily grind, and as their sole form of relaxation.  Again, I get that and applaud it.  If you enjoy that style of golf, keep it up...have fun.

When I read your opening post, I thought of the following quotes,

"Donna' worry about the score so much, it's not the important thing."

"shootin' par is second best.  Goin' for results like that leads men and cultures and entire world's astray.  But if ye do it form the inside ye get the results eventually and everything else with it."



I "get" the quotes and I'm striving to get the results and everything else with it.  I'm not there yet, but still working at it.

But like I said, if others don't like that or strive for that...that is fine.  Love golf in your way...as that is your calling from the game.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2012, 11:01:41 PM »
As Bobby Jones said, "there is golf and there is tournament golf."  

"Tournament golf" is pretty well defined by the Rules of Golf and the format of the competition. The 99.9% of golf that is not "tournament golf" likely cannot be defined. I would argue that it should not be defined.

The fact is golf can be experienced, played and enjoyed in many different ways. That golf can by played (and enjoyed) alone makes it different from a number of sports and really empowers the individual to encounter the game on their own terms.    

As golf has traveled around the globe, it is obvious that different countries have developed golf cultures and customs of their own. Those cultures and customs reflect both the general values of those societies and the climates & topographies of where those countries are located.

I sometimes read the phrase "golf as it was meant to be played." While it is a nice advertising/marketing slogan, all we really know is how golf used to be played. Clearly, golf has been played in many different ways over the past 200 years.

 
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 11:04:19 PM by David_Tepper »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2012, 07:50:10 AM »

Some of the biggest problems facing Golf today and also this site is the reluctance of both individual and golfing bodies to face just that decision of defining what it is we play today.

The longer we delay this process the further away we travel from the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf.

So some feel that by defining the game as they see it may limit the choices of others or at least put on some minor pressure, yet at the same time the failure to define the game is diluting it down further.

Let’s look at the overall game, yes carts are here and will stay, no problem as long as the definition of the game or games are made clear. Distance aids, yet again will remain so the same rules should apply as per the carts definition. Having said that each variation is a step further away from the game we know as golf by the simple fact that they represent outside physical and mental aids which to my understanding went against the moral rules of the game.

The modern game with these outside aids are over helpful to the player in first saving energy  then in side-lining the mind and thinking process which like walking is a central part of the game.

Now play you variation, use your aids and toys if you feel the need, that’s your choice, but don’t have the impertinence to tell Golfers that you are playing the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf.  You may be playing cartball or mobile golf or Assisted Golf but it is not Golf.

Clearly the issue is one of balls, that is of having the balls to say I play Cart Ball not Golf, but the stigma of knowing or is it that others know that you rider and need to use distance aids to assist you in playing your watered down variation of golf. 

The way some use the term Traditional golfer or Purist comes across in a rather uncomplimentary way, some seem to sneer the word(s) yet ask that they define their game and watch the multitude run for the hills.  What is that all about, you play with aids so why not just admit it and let’s put the variations of the game in their rightful boxes, or as I said above is there a stigma that modern players are unable to commit knowing that their variation of the game is a very watered down shadow of the real game of golf.

You can define real golf, it’s just that you do not want to upset your friends who use these said aids. But what about your so called friends, they certainly are showing no consideration in return as to you having the balls, the strength of character to honour and play the game of Golf.

If we could just kill all this pretence that it’s the same game, be honest and state ones preference then the likes of little old me would not have a reason to complain. I do wonder if this denial, the lack of acknowledgement that the game of golf has split into weaker variations is a subconscious reaction knowing that using aids is really against all that golf really stand for or perhaps represents.  If cart ball is you game then shout it from the roof tops, be proud and seek to achieve great things, but don’t condemn that great game of golf to oblivion because you do not have the balls of your own conviction. Similar comment if you also rely upon distance aids, just be honest in defining your game, because you are not playing unaided.

I am at times condemned for trying to be honest to get the game back onto an honest path. It’s not me that seems to feel the embarrassment but those using outside aids and yet still try to convince others that it’s the same game as Golf.

IMHO definition is so desperately required to be able to produce and understand good designs, rather than what comes across at times as a confused or compromised GCA, all for the sake of trying to accommodate all parties.

It is not time golf got back a little honesty?
 
Melvyn

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2012, 07:56:43 AM »
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2012, 08:00:04 AM »
Melvyn...

If the individual golfers are playing by the rules, how are they not golfers?  How are they not playing golf?

Again, you rail at all the modern golfers...but your beef lies with the governing bodies...IMO.

These people who ride in carts and use distance aids are playing by the rules of their specific courses.  They aren't putting vasoline on the face of their driver, they aren't using Polara golf balls...they are playing by the rules of golf as they are defined.

As long as they are doing that, I'm happy to embrace all variations of golfers.  And I don't understand your continued rants against them.  I get your passion for the walking game.  I get your manta of golf as a thinking game best highlighted without distance aids.  I find that version of the game to be extremely fun.  But as the rules (local or global) are written, you don't have to do those things to be playing golf.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2012, 08:01:34 AM »
That's not honest, that's taking the Piss out of the Game and here is you trying to show a friend the heart and soul of golf in his first trip to Scotland - perhaps he deserves a better guide :o

Now that’s honesty.

Adam Makepeace

Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2012, 08:07:58 AM »
It's been a long time since I have seen that Michael. Just brilliant.

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2012, 08:20:51 AM »
I'd like to share a post from the Casey Martin thread that Doug Ralston made about all this "what is golf" dogma:

No, let me express it a little differently. Walking is not important to golf, it is only important to YOU!

Golf is trying to get from tee to green in the least number of strokes. That requires some kind of ball, some kind of club, and using them the best you can. Nothing is even implied by the club, ball tee, hole etc about HOW you get from one place to another.

You [the 'Traditional golf Shaman'] insist that only your dogma represents 'real' golf. But, of course, shaman always are contemptuous of opinions that do not glorify them. Walking proves your atheleticism? Where did golf become a sport demanding atheleticism? From the same tradition shaman, of course. "This must never be changed". Of course, much more fundamental changes have been accepted, like metal clubs and rubber balls. Things truly having to do with your skill at getting the ball from tee to green in the least number of strokes. But, of course, if you insist on feathers and wood, you will simply be a shaman ignored. So you pick something that won't effect anything but is still exclusive [excluding is the most thrilling power of the shaman, isn't it?]. You say, just because you say it, that 'walking is mandatory. Somehow it is not golf if you say it isn't.

Let me suggest liberty instead. Let anyone use a cart where they are available, or not, if they choose. I do not care if Bubba Watson can walk further than Casey Martin or Tiger Woods. I only like to watch their skills at hitting and controlling the golf ball [aka the golf].

Should not the PGA now demand Phil quit using his Embrel? No coffee, as caffeine offers too much enery advantage over those who do not like it. You get the drift.

Walking isn't golf, it is extraneous. It doesn't reflect anything but what You [shaman] want it to reflect. Your contempt and your control.
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2012, 09:04:09 AM »


Mac

I do not dispute that modern players are playing within the Rules.
I do not dispute that the problem lies at the hands of the Governing Bodies

But look at how many are willing to define what golf is was and perhaps should be.

It’s a question of honesty and commitment, who will speak out first the players or the governing bodies.  The answer is simple no one will, no one wants to rock the boat. Courses are being designed with carts or cart tracks in mind compromising designs, but on one is Walking is not mandatory, but it is at the heart and souls of golf willing to stand and ask open honest questions.

To move on we need to establish what is golf, what are the major variations?  Build on solid foundations not compromised compromises. Define the games and place Rules appropriate to each , Define the course as Non Walking or walking Aids Free or Free to use aids.

This is due to poor governing bodies not understand the full implication of their decisions, their inability to react fast enough and also be open to views of the little guys who are the grassroots of the game.

Like the governing bodies there is a moral approach based upon right and wrong, which also rests upon our shoulders. If the Governing Body does not react then we should  accept what we may consider a step too far or the destruction of the moral heart and spirit of the game. Like the game, being a golfer requires the individual to rise to the challenge to be ready to take the test and to push for what is right and try to correct what is wrong. Alas we have seen no moral uprising, that’s been put to death by the greed of money and the laziness of many an individual.

Currently the game is a melting pot of variations, yet covered by one set of Rules.  It’s the tail wagging the dog and what recourse has the individual players in trying to raise awareness – simply taking the piss by others who apparently don’t give a stuff for the game.

We all know instinctively what is right and wrong, yet many do not want any form of golfing definition in case it impacts on their way of thinking or playing. But quite rightly you raised the question of the Governing Bodies and yes the full blame IMHO does rest upon their shoulders for this current mess, but that does not make the players blameless. Perhaps that the difference between a player and a golfer



Walking is not mandatory, but it is at the heart and souls of golf without walking we would have had no Golf - the records speak for themselves 600 hundred years of walking even up to this day and including The Open - its not important to golf, its extraneous, words I expect from the closed minded lazy bigots of the game who have never understood what the game is about.

As for using carts aids or whatever, do so, it only compounds your ignorance and reinforces your total lack of understand the game, but hey what's new. As I said all you have to do is decide what is your game and play it, but be honest with its name.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2012, 09:11:24 AM »


Mac

I do not dispute that modern players are playing within the Rules.
I do not dispute that the problem lies at the hands of the Governing Bodies

But look at how many are willing to define what golf is was and perhaps should be.

It’s a question of honesty and commitment, who will speak out first the players or the governing bodies.  The answer is simple no one will, no one wants to rock the boat. Courses are being designed with carts or cart tracks in mind compromising designs, but on one is Walking is not mandatory, but it is at the heart and souls of golf willing to stand and ask open honest questions.

To move on we need to establish what is golf, what are the major variations?  Build on solid foundations not compromised compromises. Define the games and place Rules appropriate to each , Define the course as Non Walking or walking Aids Free or Free to use aids.

This is due to poor governing bodies not understand the full implication of their decisions, their inability to react fast enough and also be open to views of the little guys who are the grassroots of the game.

Like the governing bodies there is a moral approach based upon right and wrong, which also rests upon our shoulders. If the Governing Body does not react then we should  accept what we may consider a step too far or the destruction of the moral heart and spirit of the game. Like the game, being a golfer requires the individual to rise to the challenge to be ready to take the test and to push for what is right and try to correct what is wrong. Alas we have seen no moral uprising, that’s been put to death by the greed of money and the laziness of many an individual.

Currently the game is a melting pot of variations, yet covered by one set of Rules.  It’s the tail wagging the dog and what recourse has the individual players in trying to raise awareness – simply taking the piss by others who apparently don’t give a stuff for the game.

We all know instinctively what is right and wrong, yet many do not want any form of golfing definition in case it impacts on their way of thinking or playing. But quite rightly you raised the question of the Governing Bodies and yes the full blame IMHO does rest upon their shoulders for this current mess, but that does not make the players blameless. Perhaps that the difference between a player and a golfer



Walking is not mandatory, but it is at the heart and souls of golf without walking we would have had no Golf - the records speak for themselves 600 hundred years of walking even up to this day and including The Open - its not important to golf, its extraneous, words I expect from the closed minded lazy bigots of the game who have never understood what the game is about.

As for using carts aids or whatever, do so, it only compounds your ignorance and reinforces your total lack of understand the game, but hey what's new. As I said all you have to do is decide what is your game and play it, but be honest with its name.

All from a guy who doesn't even play golf himself.
H.P.S.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2012, 09:15:52 AM »
Like the governing bodies there is a moral approach based upon right and wrong, which also rests upon our shoulders.


Right, just like your "moral approach" towards your efforts at Askernish.


Bill,

You think it's possible that Melvyn hasn't been to Askernish?

He has posted at length about the qualities of the course. And lectured Tom Doak about what he should and shouldn't do there... And was afforded a GCA.com Feature Interview in which to pontificate further.

Say it ain't so!

Melvyn?

Still no answer.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2012, 09:18:32 AM by PCraig »
H.P.S.

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2012, 09:25:41 AM »
Mel

Where can I get a decent feathery these days?
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2012, 09:32:54 AM »
There are so many better paths to travel to reinforce your point of view, Melvyn.  My friend, and I do mean that, you can do better and by doing better your message will be better understood and resonate more widely.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2012, 09:36:14 AM »
Pat

Moral is moral period,

As for Askernish its a great course, never played it but with difficulty one can get to the sea in time if not rushed. Still a great course and great people, pity Scott nor yourself have checked it out, but then that's not the point, its trying to score points rather than sticking to the GCA.

Lecture Tom, well he does not always get it right, he is like the next man, human nothing wrong in raising ones concerns, after all is that not the point of this site.

Sarge

Seems you might find it in your mind

Mac

Its Ok for others to make statements but if I defend myself i'm wrong, thanks I'll remember that in future.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2012, 09:38:45 AM »
Don't feed the troll. He's all mouth, no balls.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2012, 09:43:52 AM »

Sarge

Seems you might find it in your mind



Well done
"We finally beat Medicare. "

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2012, 09:46:50 AM »
As for Askernish its a great course, never played it but with difficulty one can get to the sea in time if not rushed. Still a great course and great people, pity Scott nor yourself have checked it out, but then that's not the point, its trying to score points rather than sticking to the GCA.

Lecture Tom, well he does not always get it right, he is like the next man, human nothing wrong in raising ones concerns, after all is that not the point of this site.

I have no idea how you know Askernish is a great course if you've never been there. I haven't visited yet, but then again I haven't pretended to either. You're no better than the "governing bodies" in that you were blatantly dishonest in order to advance your agenda. You deceived and lectured others on something with little first hand knowledge, much like you do in your numerous lectures (rants) towards others on this site. Other than your supposed family tree and the enormous amount of time spent at a keyboard I find no credibility in your vitriol.
H.P.S.

Harris Nepon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2012, 09:50:59 AM »
Don't know what it is about these threads Melvin starts, but I can never seem to keep away from them.

Can't disagree with you more Melvin that golf isn't golf. Just cause you don't use a cart or distance aids doesn't mean the rest of the world can't.

I look to the 100, 150, and 200 yard markers for reference of my distance. I like to take a cart sometimes when I'm tired after work but walk the majority of my rounds. Either way, I still think about each of my shots and factor in weather, GCA, etc. I still play golf. You used to play golf to. We are playing the same game. Get the ball in the hole in as few as strokes as possible. And yes, I also like to keep track of my score and try to be as close to par as possible. But sometimes I don't care. Either way, I have fun every time I play and relish the opportunity to play a round of golf.

Definition of the game of golf - play by the rule and have fun. Simple as that.

Probably shouldn't have posted in this thread. Just feeding the fire.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2012, 10:13:24 AM »


Mac

Its Ok for others to make statements but if I defend myself i'm wrong, thanks I'll remember that in future.

 ???

Huh?  I'm talking about your macro tactics, not any one specific post.

Oh well...
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2012, 11:34:17 AM »

Harris

Because the R&A have betrayed the very essence of the game, does not IMHO make it right.

The principle at the heart of the matter is the definition of golf. It so needs to be resolved.

My view is that walking has been at the centre of the game from the start whether you carry your clubs or not, you walked as it’s been recorded for some 600 years (give or take). The very part of walking constitutes an important part of the game, it allows the mind to observe the course, the terrain and contours, to understand the weather gauge and allows time for the hazards to be seen as such depending upon the light upon the course or that particular Hole. My own game started in the 60’s following these very steps as there was no alternative in walking or distance. In fact distance knowledge was not paramount in those days with golfers using God’s gifts to judge not the distances but the stroke required to achieve ones target.  Some 20 years passed before we saw a cart on a course or someone killing the game for others by pacing the ball.  The game I was taught was golf, it was achieved by one’s own skill and feet, not reliance on outside help.  That’s golf.

Now because the R&A are as weak as water, and dither a lot somehow the use of outside aids were made legal. Overnight  it changed the game, it took away all that was generated by the golfer allowing outside aids to replace the need to walk or think, which for some 550 years was the prime driving force of the game.  Tired after a day at work you waked off the stress you concentrated on your game and that help further dissipate the stress all the time while taking gentle exercise to  promoting a healthier mind and body ready to face the challenges of what the course has in waiting.
All that gone by jumping on a cart, of course that’s a different game, the two major components have been removed at a stroke.

Golf for me is a walking thinking game, its why it went global, but now dumbed down by the lazy less committed seeking to be defined as golfers but not willing to enter into the spirit of the game. Walking is golf as Golf is all about walking. The same can be said about the eyes judging distance, all having been achieved by the golfer unaided and totally under his own steam. Result great enjoyment knowing that no help was required or given and you achieved it by your own efforts.  Golf has been watered down, its easy, you do not have to pace yourself, you arrive refreshed at each shot, the design or GCA has played no part in your game so far.  You do not need to be in a good or positive frame of mind you look through your viewfinder and ops there is some distance info. Yet your eyes played so far no part in the game, you club is selected to balance the distance and you mechanically take the stroke.  Your eyes have so far played no real part in the game, have you noticed in the looking what is in front of you, the leaning of the shrubs, the flowing in the wind of the grass, the divots on or near the LZ, in fact have you noticed the GCA at all?

It’s a different game it requires more emphasis in its preparation and execution of each and every stroke to the Green, so should be governed by different Rules.

In fact the riding game is turned into an aerial game more akin to pitch and putt by sinking that ball in the lowest number of strokes.  Golf utilises Man’s natural senses and the GCA to navigate the course by trying to combat the design, Nature and the Hand of God giving a feeling of unity with the land.   


Pat Tell me how many time have I given you a breakdown of TOC, an itemised Hole for Hole report, or a copy of my scorecards back to the 70’s. Not once, so you will I presume attack me for not visiting St Andrews and playing TOC.   


Stephen Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2012, 11:48:24 AM »
My definition is simple... Enjoyment!

Melvyn Morrow

Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2012, 11:50:51 AM »

Stephen is that enjoyment of walking riding or both?

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2012, 11:53:54 AM »

Pat Tell me how many time have I given you a breakdown of TOC, an itemised Hole for Hole report, or a copy of my scorecards back to the 70’s. Not once, so you will I presume attack me for not visiting St Andrews and playing TOC.   



I would assume that someone who is giving me detailed advice on a course has at least visited the course prior. But then again when it comes to you you never know what you're getting is real, fake, lies, or hyperbole.

Are you even related to Old Tom Morris? Or is that also exaggerated to prove a point?
H.P.S.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2012, 12:20:33 PM »
Pat,

While it is unbecoming to stalk a beautiful woman it is quite telling to stalk a crazy old cripple.  You are Melvyn's greatest champion.

Stephen Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How would you define the game of golf….
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2012, 12:53:18 PM »

Stephen is that enjoyment of walking riding or both?

I walk 90% of my rounds (I just walked 18 at Chambers Bay and 54 the next day at Wine Valley). I prefer walking as it adds to the experience for me. That being said, if I am riding in a cart with some good company, than that is also extremely enjoyable.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back