[Mike McGuire]

David, taking it one step further, if you have a foursome where no one is competing against each other do you have four people playing golf by themselves and therefore not playing the sport of golf at all?

A standard partners game around here is a 'scotch' or 'basket' game. 2 pts for high ball, 2 pts for low, 1 pt for proxie, 1 pt for birdie. Get them all and it doubles to 12 pts. Par is needed to define the the last two parts.

[Jud_T]

  Why can't there be some courses which an 18 capper finds too difficult to enjoy? 

I think that's something Ron Whitten said one night after spilling the last of his scotch all over the proposed rating criteria.  Except there might have been an expletive or two thrown in.

[Brent Hutto]

I call it "golf as onanism" vs. "having a game of golf". I spent three days of my last week-long golf holiday all by myself enjoying a wonderful golf course in some beautiful weather. It was very relaxing and refreshing as a break from my usual routine. But you guys are right, the only relation between that activity having a "game of golf" against some sort of opponent(s) were that both take place on a golf course and both activities use the same clubs and balls.

I would submit that designing a course upon which the golfer can enjoy playing with himself, as it were, would be a wonderfully freeing experience for the architect. Except for the fact that a course on which noone wanted to "have a game of golf" would never get built and if it did would instantly bankrupt its owner. I mean if it's just me out there having a good time the concept of "fairness" would never be invoked. And you could create all the quirk or odd features you'd ever want to try as long as the course had plenty of variety in the shots on offer.

But the design has to be directed at the normative use to which the product will be put. And for golf that means serving the card and pencil brigade as well as the groups who want to have a better-ball Nassau with all manner of junk bets and presses and the other paraphernalia of group betting games. If you can do a good job attending to the needs of those two types of "game of golf" the odd bird out there playing by himself will do just fine on his own, generally. Lord knows Ganton has always been intended as a combination of member's club and tournament venue yet my six rounds there solo were everything I could ask of a course.

The hypocrisy, as I see it, among a certain type of golfer arises when they attempt to substitute a numerical "card and pencil" reckoning of non-competitive round (golf as onanism) for the actual game of golf. I meet plenty of folks who think the one true purpose of a golf course is to generate data for computing their handicap index (to a fraction of a stroke, no less) which they can then track and use to evaluate, apparently, their worth as human beings. Or something like that. They want it both ways. No messy entanglements of a human opponent, no ebb and flow of pressure depending on where that particular game stands at the moment, just a purified pseudo-competition in which only the golfer himself and that scorecard as the arbiter of his "improvement" as that almighty index tracks lower and lower from round to round, month to month, year to year. It's self-abuse in my view but it's a very popular thing to do on golf courses it would seem.

[Kevin Lynch]

Kyle,  what is sport if it is not comparing your standard of play to that of another person or other persons.  If you are not comparing your play to others, you are not playing sport.  Sure, some might consider golf a past-time or recreation, but recreational golf is not real golf, it is a poor facsimile that exists around the fringes of the golfing world.  It is to golf what hitting a tennis ball against a wall is to tennis, or hackey sack is to soccer. 

I don't care if you are playing in the US Open or a $2 match against a 18 handicapper, unless you are competing against someone you are not participating in the sport of golf.

I agree with David, playing the course is just a fancy way of saying practice. 

I have to disagree with Sean & David here to some extent.

Sure, I understand that comparing your performance to others is one element of sport.  But, in many of the head-to-head sports, you can actually influence your opponent's performance.  Also, golf is different because most other sports have standardized fields of play, so that the emphasis is solely on the performance of the individuals.  To say that you are not playing against the course does a disservice to the game.  

Put another way, do you really think a long-drive competition (head-to-head) is more about golf than me playing as a single trying to solve the puzzle of the course.  Plus, I'm not just competing against the course, I'm competing against my own expectations of my abilities, and striving for that ideal when I can execute a shot as I conceived it.

Put in a philosophical sense, I'm always competing to see how close I can get to the "pure form" of golf on each shot.  You may call that "practice," but I think that neglects why the sport of golf is special, since you are the only one that can affect your performance.  If we focused solely on the head-to-head elements, we'd move closer to standardized playing fields and I think the essence of the game would be diminished.

Having said all that, I understand that competition against others does add to the game.  But, even in those cases, you strive to be the one who comes closest to that ideal most often.  Sure, you can occasionally "win" by playing "less worse" than your opponent, but do you feel fufilled?  I've been more pleased in matches when I've played really well, but my opponent was just in the zone.

I think the reason for that is that we always are measuring ourselves against the "form" of the game, regardless of what our opponents do.  I think the competition against that ideal is what provides the sporting element in golf, which is why a single player can always be engaged in sport.


Trying to tie this into the original post, I suppose some may think of "in regulation" as the ideal, but it really is just a number based off par, which can be arbitrary.  One of my local courses has a 465 yard hole, filled with danger throughout (water / trees in drive zone, OB just left of green).  It was a par 5 for years, until one year, the scorecard magically changed to a par 4.  Hitting a green in regulation changed completely, but how I play the hole should not have changed at all.  From an architectural standpoint, I want a course that provides a varying amount of challenges and risk/reward decisions (i.e chances for me to compete against my established ideal).  What is "regulation" will vary according to each person's abilities and expectations of their own game.

[Jud_T]

I love playing by myself.  There's a unique solitude and almost zen-like experience to it.  If golf is getting away from everyday life's trial and tribulations, then playing by oneself is truly getting away from it all and having some me time.  If you're trying to post a medal score, it's simply a matter of managing your game to the best of your abilities on the given day.  That means trying to post the best number possible relative to the risks you're taking relative to your ability.  "Par" has nothing to do with it.

[Sean_A]

Kyle,  what is sport if it is not comparing your standard of play to that of another person or other persons.  If you are not comparing your play to others, you are not playing sport.  Sure, some might consider golf a past-time or recreation, but recreational golf is not real golf, it is a poor facsimile that exists around the fringes of the golfing world.  It is to golf what hitting a tennis ball against a wall is to tennis, or hackey sack is to soccer. 

I don't care if you are playing in the US Open or a $2 match against a 18 handicapper, unless you are competing against someone you are not participating in the sport of golf.

I agree with David, playing the course is just a fancy way of saying practice. 

I have to disagree with Sean & David here to some extent.

Sure, I understand that comparing your performance to others is one element of sport.  But, in many of the head-to-head sports, you can actually influence your opponent's performance.  Also, golf is different because most other sports have standardized fields of play, so that the emphasis is solely on the performance of the individuals.  To say that you are not playing against the course does a disservice to the game.  

Put another way, do you really think a long-drive competition (head-to-head) is more about golf than me playing as a single trying to solve the puzzle of the course.  Plus, I'm not just competing against the course, I'm competing against my own expectations of my abilities, and striving for that ideal when I can execute a shot as I conceived it.

Put in a philosophical sense, I'm always competing to see how close I can get to the "pure form" of golf on each shot.  You may call that "practice," but I think that neglects why the sport of golf is special, since you are the only one that can affect your performance.  If we focused solely on the head-to-head elements, we'd move closer to standardized playing fields and I think the essence of the game would be diminished.

Having said all that, I understand that competition against others does add to the game.  But, even in those cases, you strive to be the one who comes closest to that ideal most often.  Sure, you can occasionally "win" by playing "less worse" than your opponent, but do you feel fufilled?  I've been more pleased in matches when I've played really well, but my opponent was just in the zone.

I think the reason for that is that we always are measuring ourselves against the "form" of the game, regardless of what our opponents do.  I think the competition against that ideal is what provides the sporting element in golf, which is why a single player can always be engaged in sport.


Trying to tie this into the original post, I suppose some may think of "in regulation" as the ideal, but it really is just a number based off par, which can be arbitrary.  One of my local courses has a 465 yard hole, filled with danger throughout (water / trees in drive zone, OB just left of green).  It was a par 5 for years, until one year, the scorecard magically changed to a par 4.  Hitting a green in regulation changed completely, but how I play the hole should not have changed at all.  From an architectural standpoint, I want a course that provides a varying amount of challenges and risk/reward decisions (i.e chances for me to compete against my established ideal).  What is "regulation" will vary according to each person's abilities and expectations of their own game.

Kevin

I wonder if where we differ is on what matters to us.  To me, it doesn't matter if one can play well by himself because its a form of practice.  Its in competition where it counts.  Thats why I would never be in favour of posting (for handicap purposes) friendly game scores or those played alone.  Having fun doing it is another matter.  I would much rather have a friendly game which is competitive than play in a competition. 

Ciao

[Carl Johnson]

Carl:

There is one difficult par-4 at Crystal Downs (the 13th) that I play with the following mind-set:  I'm trying to get up around the green in two shots, and then get down in two.  The reality is that the hole is probably a par 4.75 for me.

The problem with building lots of forward tees is that every golfer starts to feel entitled to have a set of tees that is perfect for THEM ... which would be fine if they accepted the viewpoint I take toward certain difficult holes.  But most do not see it this way ... most start to feel entitled to expect to hit every green "in regulation" and find fault with the course set-up if they can't, instead of finding fault with their own sorry golf games or with their choice of tees.

Tom: do you ever, or would you ever, design holes that suggest the best way to play them, for any golfer, is (par 4 model) to try to get around the green in two, and down in two?  That is, for many holes you will design a mid-tee that will allow a middle hitter to reach (and hold) a par 4 green in two, but on some other holes your mid-tee, for the middle hitter, would dictate that the percentage play would be a lay-up with chip and putt for par.  Is that a reasonable design option in this day and age?  

[Brent Hutto]

A lot of runners do their training by attempting to meet or better certain time expectations. They do not consider going out the front door of their house, alone, and trying to run 10K in 36 minutes to be "running a race against the course". They consider it training.

Same thing with golf. Nothing wrong with going out solo and trying your best to break 80 on a certain course on a certain day. But it is still practice, not a game of golf.

[Carl Johnson]

Kyle,  what is sport if it is not comparing your standard of play to that of another person or other persons.  If you are not comparing your play to others, you are not playing sport.  Sure, some might consider golf a past-time or recreation, but recreational golf is not real golf, it is a poor facsimile that exists around the fringes of the golfing world.  It is to golf what hitting a tennis ball against a wall is to tennis, or hackey sack is to soccer.  

I don't care if you are playing in the US Open or a $2 match against a 18 handicapper, unless you are competing against someone you are not participating in the sport of golf.

I agree with David, playing the course is just a fancy way of saying practice.  

I have to disagree with Sean & David here to some extent.

Sure, I understand that comparing your performance to others is one element of sport.  But, in many of the head-to-head sports, you can actually influence your opponent's performance.  Also, golf is different because most other sports have standardized fields of play, so that the emphasis is solely on the performance of the individuals.  To say that you are not playing against the course does a disservice to the game.  

Put another way, do you really think a long-drive competition (head-to-head) is more about golf than me playing as a single trying to solve the puzzle of the course.  Plus, I'm not just competing against the course, I'm competing against my own expectations of my abilities, and striving for that ideal when I can execute a shot as I conceived it.

Put in a philosophical sense, I'm always competing to see how close I can get to the "pure form" of golf on each shot.  You may call that "practice," but I think that neglects why the sport of golf is special, since you are the only one that can affect your performance.  If we focused solely on the head-to-head elements, we'd move closer to standardized playing fields and I think the essence of the game would be diminished.

Having said all that, I understand that competition against others does add to the game.  But, even in those cases, you strive to be the one who comes closest to that ideal most often.  Sure, you can occasionally "win" by playing "less worse" than your opponent, but do you feel fufilled?  I've been more pleased in matches when I've played really well, but my opponent was just in the zone.

I think the reason for that is that we always are measuring ourselves against the "form" of the game, regardless of what our opponents do.  I think the competition against that ideal is what provides the sporting element in golf, which is why a single player can always be engaged in sport.


Trying to tie this into the original post, I suppose some may think of "in regulation" as the ideal, but it really is just a number based off par, which can be arbitrary.  One of my local courses has a 465 yard hole, filled with danger throughout (water / trees in drive zone, OB just left of green).  It was a par 5 for years, until one year, the scorecard magically changed to a par 4.  Hitting a green in regulation changed completely, but how I play the hole should not have changed at all.  From an architectural standpoint, I want a course that provides a varying amount of challenges and risk/reward decisions (i.e chances for me to compete against my established ideal).  What is "regulation" will vary according to each person's abilities and expectations of their own game.

Kevin

I wonder if where we differ is on what matters to us.  To me, it doesn't matter if one can play well by himself because its a form of practice.  Its in competition where it counts.  Thats why I would never be in favour of posting (for handicap purposes) friendly game scores or those played alone.  Having fun doing it is another matter.  I would much rather have a friendly game which is competitive than play in a competition.  

Ciao

Personally, I'm on Sean and David's side, too.  Which is not to say there's anything wrong with looking at it - getting your enjoyment from golf - with Kevin's mindset.  I wonder if you took a golfers' vote, how many would opt for Kevin's view, versus Sean's and David's?  Let's say 50-50.  Then, what sort of challenge does that present for the golf course designer, if any?

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin

I wonder if where we differ is on what matters to us.  To me, it doesn't matter if one can play well by himself because its a form of practice.  Its in competition where it counts.  Thats why I would never be in favour of posting (for handicap purposes) friendly game scores or those played alone.  Having fun doing it is another matter.  I would much rather have a friendly game which is competitive than play in a competition. 

Ciao

Sean,

I get that there's a difference between "tournament golf" and everything else, but I was against the concept that the "sporting" element in golf was derived solely from the comparison to other individuals and that there wasn't "sport" if you weren't in a head-to-head competition.

Don't get me wrong - I love playing match play and would not consider myself a "scorecard & pencil" mentality.  I just think the primary sporting element in golf comes from the internal challenge of solving the course and executing shots as you envision.  This is especially true in golf, when we know that certain shots are within our ability (from past experience), but the challenge is replicating that effort.

You may call playing alone "practice", but I think that is too dismissive a term (and you probably don't mean it that way).  But I know the frustration that I have after certain days playing alone.  That doesn't come from losing to an opponent.  That comes from knowing I didn't compete well against my expectations or the course (or the "pure form" of ball-striking, if I'm channeling my inner Socrates).  That  joy / angst I experience when I take on that challenge seems more like "sport" to me than "practice."


Put another way, is "winning" (vs. an opponent) more important than playing well (coming close to your ideal)?  Like I indicated before, just beating an opponent still feels unsatisfying when I merely play "less worse," and I think many people would say the same. 

When we say someone displays "sportsmanship," we are usually thinking of more than just winning / losing.  I think "good sportsmanship" means recognizing that there is something bigger than the simple head-to-head comparison.

[Jason Thurman]

At what point does "practice" start to become "play"?

[Kevin Lynch]

Tom: do you ever, or would you ever, design holes that suggest the best way to play them, for any golfer, is (par 4 model) to try to get around the green in two, and down in two?  That is, for many holes you will design a mid-tee that will allow a middle hitter to reach (and hold) a par 4 green in two, but on some other holes your mid-tee, for the middle hitter, would dictate that the percentage play would be a lay-up with chip and putt for par.  Is that a reasonable design option in this day and age?  

Carl,

Isn't that the reason that 1/2 par holes are so good?  As Tom even indicated, you can go beyond 1/2 par, to the point that a hole feels like a par 4.75.  I think "in regulation" needs to be viewed on a continuum, which also factors in probabilities, rather than as strict integers.

In the situation you described, you could have a variety of holes where the theoretical "regulation" was two shots for all of them, but they didn't have the same likelihood of being achieved.  My "internal" version of in-regulation may be "I should reach #4 in 2 90% of the time, while I expect to reach #17 in 2 only 5% of the time."  Like Tom suggests, in some cases, people should just expect to get close and try their best to get up & down.

When people start thinking solely in terms of whole numbers for "in regulation", I think that leads to a lack of variety, which is the worst possible scenario.  


For a short hitter, you don't want the situation that Ulrich described, where a player is hitting driver / hybrid / wedge all day, but there is only so much you can do if they refuse to play the correct tees or simply acknowledge their own limitations on certain difficult holes.

[Brent Hutto]

Heck it's all "play" if you're not getting paid to do it.

If I'm teeing the ball up, hitting it from tee to green, putting out then moving to the next hole I am certainly playing golf.

Doing it by myself means I'm not "having a game" nor am I "competing" nor is it qualitatively the same as a game against one or more opponents. But it's still play. Play in the sense of something you do purely because it is fun.

Playing golf by myself is play. Competing at golf against an opponent is play. Going out and throwing a frisbee for the dog to catch is play. Lots of things are play. But it's silly to pretend one type of play is the same as another when it is obviously different.

This concept of competing against oneself is an oxymoron. I believe generations of golfers have misinterpreted comments from good players about just playing within yourself and ignoring what your opponent does as being literally prescriptive. Those are figurative ways of describing mental discipline that can prove useful in actual competition.

[David_Elvins]

Put another way, do you really think a long-drive competition (head-to-head) is more about golf than me playing as a single trying to solve the puzzle of the course.  Plus, I'm not just competing against the course, I'm competing against my own expectations of my abilities, and striving for that ideal when I can execute a shot as I conceived it.

Put in a philosophical sense, I'm always competing to see how close I can get to the "pure form" of golf on each shot.  You may call that "practice," but I think that neglects why the sport of golf is special, since you are the only one that can affect your performance.  If we focused solely on the head-to-head elements, we'd move closer to standardized playing fields and I think the essence of the game would be diminished.

Don't get me wrong - I love playing match play and would not consider myself a "scorecard & pencil" mentality.  I just think the primary sporting element in golf comes from the internal challenge of solving the course and executing shots as you envision.  This is especially true in golf, when we know that certain shots are within our ability (from past experience), but the challenge is replicating that effort.

You may call playing alone "practice", but I think that is too dismissive a term (and you probably don't mean it that way).  But I know the frustration that I have after certain days playing alone.  That doesn't come from losing to an opponent.  That comes from knowing I didn't compete well against my expectations or the course (or the "pure form" of ball-striking, if I'm channeling my inner Socrates).  That  joy / angst I experience when I take on that challenge seems more like "sport" to me than "practice."

Kevin,

That is a really good couple of posts and I agree with what you are saying.  However, to pick up on one small thing, when you talk about 'playing against the course' you are talking about it in a subjective sense - " the pure form of each shot",  "striving for that ideal when I can execute a shot as I conceived it."  In that sense, there is no doubt that playing against the course is what makes golf such a special game.

What I object to, however, is player's who play against the course in a absolute sense.  eg. "breaking 80 is good, not shooting 80 is bad" or "playing to handicap is good, not playing to handicap is bad."  What this leads to is golfers expecting golf courses to be set up exactly the same from day to day.  They will not like varied pin positions that dramatically change the difficulty of a hole,  they will not like wind, they will not like courses where the playing characteristics vary with the seasons.  Basically, they will not like everything that is great about great golf course architecture.  

It is the golfer that Brent so beautifully describes below that is bad for golf course architecture, and he is also the type of golfer that will be most concerned with "greens in regulation". 

I meet plenty of folks who think the one true purpose of a golf course is to generate data for computing their handicap index (to a fraction of a stroke, no less) which they can then track and use to evaluate, apparently, their worth as human beings. Or something like that. They want it both ways. No messy entanglements of a human opponent, no ebb and flow of pressure depending on where that particular game stands at the moment, just a purified pseudo-competition in which only the golfer himself and that scorecard as the arbiter of his "improvement" as that almighty index tracks lower and lower from round to round, month to month, year to year. It's self-abuse in my view but it's a very popular thing to do on golf courses it would seem.

[Kevin Lynch]

Personally, I'm on Sean and David's side, too.  Which is not to say there's anything wrong with looking at it - getting your enjoyment from golf - with Kevin's mindset.  I wonder if you took a golfers' vote, how many would opt for Kevin's view, versus Sean's and David's?  Let's say 50-50.  Then, what sort of challenge does that present for the golf course designer, if any?

Carl,

In my mind, I don't think that either mindset should change what the designer does.  Whether I'm competing against someone else, or competing against my own expectations / ideal, I think there should be a variety of challenges presented, none of which need to adhere to the arbitrary notion of par / regulation as a whole number.  If there is a sufficient variety of challenges, options & strategic features, I think people of both mindsets would be satisfied.

Just to be clear, when I say I'm competing against myself / the course, that isn't the same to me as competing against the scorecard (with those arbitrary par figures).  When you do have people who are obsessed with beating the scorecard, you are more likely to have complaints about the 480 yard par 4 or 230 yard par 3 (which may be your concern with this thread).  But that's not where I'm coming from.

Also, I'm not saying I don't enjoy competing against others as well.  It adds another element to the challenge of the sport, but it's not the essential element to me.  I still think the primary challenge and essence of the sport comes from meeting the challenge of the course and your own expectations.

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

That is a really good couple of posts and I agree with what you are saying.  However, to pick up on one small thing, when you talk about 'playing against the course' you are talking about it in a subjective sense - " the pure form of each shot",  "striving for that ideal when I can execute a shot as I conceived it."  In that sense, there is no doubt that playing against the course is what makes golf such a special game.

What I object to, however, is player's who play against the course in a absolute sense.  eg. "breaking 80 is good, not shooting 80 is bad" or "playing to handicap is good, not playing to handicap is bad."  What this leads to is golfers expecting golf courses to be set up exactly the same from day to day.  They will not like varied pin positions that dramatically change the difficulty of a hole,  they will not like wind, they will not like courses where the playing characteristics vary with the seasons.  Basically, they will not like everything that is great about great golf course architecture.  

David -

Agree completely with your second paragraph, and I embrace those varied challenges, whether I'm playing alone or against anyone else.  You seem to be describing the guy who's competing against the "scorecard" and not the "course."  I agree with you that this person is the type of player that can negatively impact design if the designer lives in fear of his criticism.

[Jud_T]

Essentially they should do away with scorecards and the US handicapping system and voila, problem solved.

[David_Elvins]

Essentially they should do away with scorecards and the US handicapping system and voila, problem solved.

The handicapping system is a problem.  For a start, giving handicaps to an accuracy of 0.1 of a stroke gives the golfer far too great a sense as to the accuracy to which hos skill can be measured.  I played with a poster on here recently who suggested that once your handicap is over 5, it should change in increments of 5.  Ie. You are either a high 80s shooter (handicap 15) or a low 90s shooter (handicap 20).  Describing players games with any degree of accuracy greater than that was unrealistic.  Not sure I totally agree but it is an interesting approach and probably not worse than the current system.

[Sean_A]

"Put another way, is "winning" (vs. an opponent) more important than playing well (coming close to your ideal)?  Like I indicated before, just beating an opponent still feels unsatisfying when I merely play "less worse," and I think many people would say the same."

Kevin, for my skill level (which is poor handicap golf), winning is more important than playing well.  I may feel unsatisfied if I don't play well, but I will feel more unsatisfied if I play poorly and lose.  Life isn't perfect, mind you, what is most important is having a good time - which is why I spend very little time practicing.

From a purely accurate definition PoV, sport involves competitors and the course is not a competitor.  That isn't to say that playing the game can't be or isn't more fun then playing the sport.  As I said, life is complicated so live and let live.    

Ciao

[Jeb Bearer]

Frankly I don't understand all this debate about playing the course versus playing an opponent. Surely we can agree that they're different things, but both legitimate methods of "golfing". So whether you call it practicing, playing, or whatever, why does it matter? They're all words for the same thing.

[Carl Johnson]

Tom: do you ever, or would you ever, design holes that suggest the best way to play them, for any golfer, is (par 4 model) to try to get around the green in two, and down in two?  That is, for many holes you will design a mid-tee that will allow a middle hitter to reach (and hold) a par 4 green in two, but on some other holes your mid-tee, for the middle hitter, would dictate that the percentage play would be a lay-up with chip and putt for par.  Is that a reasonable design option in this day and age?  

Carl,

Isn't that the reason that 1/2 par holes are so good?  As Tom even indicated, you can go beyond 1/2 par, to the point that a hole feels like a par 4.75.  I think "in regulation" needs to be viewed on a continuum, which also factors in probabilities, rather than as strict integers.

In the situation you described, you could have a variety of holes where the theoretical "regulation" was two shots for all of them, but they didn't have the same likelihood of being achieved.  My "internal" version of in-regulation may be "I should reach #4 in 2 90% of the time, while I expect to reach #17 in 2 only 5% of the time."  Like Tom suggests, in some cases, people should just expect to get close and try their best to get up & down.

I struggle with concept of par.  It's not relevant to me when I play, but it's there, and it's relevant to others, clearly.  When I started this discussion, I asked myself whether I was really only asking about 1/2 par holes.  I decided that I was after something different, where par would stay as is, but "in regulaltion" (two shots short of [par] would not be a valid concept.  That is, could/should a hole be designed where "from the correct tee" for any golfer, the "best" approach would always be a lay-up?  I'm not saying the "only" approach, but rather simply the "best" one, followed by a great chance for a chip/short pitch and one putt.  Maybe I'm just muddled here.  Maybe the answer is simply that "par" and "in regulation" do necessarily go hand in hand, never to be separated.

When people start thinking solely in terms of whole numbers for "in regulation", I think that leads to a lack of variety, which is the worst possible scenario.  

For a short hitter, you don't want the situation that Ulrich described, where a player is hitting driver / hybrid / wedge all day, but there is only so much you can do if they refuse to play the correct tees or simply acknowledge their own limitations on certain difficult holes.

I'm a short hitter, and play from the 2nd shortest set of tees (home course).  I can reach all of the par fives and par threes in regulation, as well as most of the par fours.   However, there are thee par fours I cannot hit in two and keep the ball on the green [long shot and low ball flight].  On two of the three, I couldn't do this even if I did move up to the most forward tees.  However, assuming no ugly shots, these holes offer very good lay-up options where a chip and one putt is very reasonable.  I doubt the holes were designed and the tees set up that way on purpose, but that's the way it works for me.  On the other hand, for the long hitter, all three of these holes are easily reachable in two, even from the very back.  Would it be feasible to design a four, with "appropriate tees," where the lay-up is the best option even for the long hitter?  Not all holes on a course, but two or three, maybe.

[Jeb Bearer]

Carl,

Very interesting concept. It would certainly force you to think outside the box, so in moderation it would probably be a good thing. But I have a feeling that the majority of golfers would hate it, and call it either weak or unfair, depending on what parwas listed on the card.

[David_Elvins]

I'm a short hitter, and play from the 2nd shortest set of tees (home course).  I can reach all of the par fives and par threes in regulation, as well as most of the par fours.   However, there are thee par fours I cannot hit in two and keep the ball on the green [long shot and low ball flight].  On two of the three, I couldn't do this even if I did move up to the most forward tees.  However, assuming no ugly shots, these holes offer very good lay-up options where a chip and one putt is very reasonable.  I doubt the holes were designed and the tees set up that way on purpose, but that's the way it works for me.  On the other hand, for the long hitter, all three of these holes are easily reachable in two, even from the very back.  Would it be feasible to design a four, with "appropriate tees," where the lay-up is the best option even for the long hitter?  Not all holes on a course, but two or three, maybe.

I think almost all par 4s should have viable lay up options.  IMO It is is forced carries, the lack of width and viable lay up options for the short hitter or average golfer that makes golf unenjoyable, not excessive length.  

I recently played the Red Course at The Berkshire which has 6 par 3s, 6 par 4s and 6 par 5s.  Now 4 of the 6 par 4s are under 490 yards so for many players they are two shot holes.  But because they were designed as par 5s they always offered room for the shorter hitter to lay up and gave him interesting options as to where to lay up.  This is in contrast to many 480 yard holes that are being built as par 4s today that give the lay up zone for short hitters little thought in their design, either by making it non existant or unchallenging.  I thought it was a great feature of the course, even though it was likely to infuriate the card and pencil players who would say, "well it is really a par 68 for the good player" despite the factthey were all interesting holes. 

[David_Elvins]

Frankly I don't understand all this debate about playing the course versus playing an opponent. Surely we can agree that they're different things, but both legitimate methods of "golfing". So whether you call it practicing, playing, or whatever, why does it matter? They're all words for the same thing.

At the heart of good golf design is the balance between risk and reward.  If you are not playing "for something" there is no risk.

So if you are going to design a great golf course, you must design it for the players who want to play against other players. 

You can't design a great golf course for players who want to play against the scorecard.

That is why it matters. 

[David_Elvins]

David, taking it one step further, if you have a foursome where no one is competing against each other do you have four people playing golf by themselves and therefore not playing the sport of golf at all?

Sure, I do it regularly, it's good practice and mostly a chance to natter away about golf courses, but it isn't sport. 

A standard partners game around here is a 'scotch' or 'basket' game. 2 pts for high ball, 2 pts for low, 1 pt for proxie, 1 pt for birdie. Get them all and it doubles to 12 pts. Par is needed to define the the last two parts.

I like the sound of this game - very sporting, might give it a try.  What's a proxie?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()