[Bill_Yates]

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

I'd say it's when you play by the rules and keep score - whether you are alone or not.

[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.

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, I agree completely. If I had my way clubs would be banned from listing the par on there scorecards But there is a difference between playing against par and playing against the course. The latter simply means trying to play the course in as few shots as your game allows, which coincides with the listed "par" for only a tiny percentage of golfers.

What I meant to say, was that a good course should give you something interesting to accomplish on each hole, and I don't think it really matters if you're trying to negotiate those features in less shots then your opponent, or than your personal goal, whatever that may be. Both are perfectly acceptable and enjoyable ways of playing golf, and I would wager that golfers are split more or less evenly as to which they prefer.

[David_Elvins]

I'd say it's when you play by the rules and keep score - whether you are alone or not.

And that's why you are wrong 

[Jeb Bearer]

I'd say it's when you play by the rules and keep score - whether you are alone or not.

And that's why you are wrong 

Care to elaborate?

[David_Elvins]

What I meant to say, was that a good course should give you something interesting to accomplish on each hole, and I don't think it really matters if you're trying to negotiate those features in less shots then your opponent, or than your personal goal, whatever that may be. Both are perfectly acceptable and enjoyable ways of playing golf, and I would wager that golfers are split more or less evenly as to which they prefer.

I think a lot on here would think Royal Melbourne is one of the top examples of golf course architecture in the world.  It is not long and the fairways are wide and generous.  If there is little wind, the greens are slowish, and the pins are in the middle of the greens, it is a very easy course.  If there is a strong wind, the greens are firm and quick and the pins are tucked more to towards to corners of the greens, it becomes a lot harder.  For me, perhaps 10 shots harder.  So how does the golfer who competes against the scorecard deal with this sort of variety?  

Basically, he can't.  He will not enjoy playing in the wind and all the cool challenges that wind presents.  He will be myopic in his assesment of pin positions - "that one is too hard"," that one is too easy", etc. and he will complain about variable conditions from month to month and day to day in the conditioning of the course.  

There are courses that will suit this style of play.  Courses that have little wind, courses with flattish greens that do not change the character of the hole when the pin position is changed, and courses that maintain similar conditions throughout the year.  These aren't the world's best courses, though, which is what this site is about.  

Care to elaborate?

I thought i had over the last 3 pages of this thread 

[Jeb Bearer]

David, I think we are saying the same thing here in different ways. We both agree that playing against the card makes no sense. We both agree that you can whack the ball around by yourself (and expect different results depending on the conditions, your own game, etc.). You say practice, I say playing... I think it's a distinction without a difference and a good design automatically provides enjoyment for both.

[Garland Bayley]

....and why playing from the correct tees (Play it Forward) can bring fun back into the game for many players.

That's bull! If the game is no fun for you, quit.

[Garland Bayley]

Par is only relevant when playing against the course. When playing against the field or playing against a single player, the total number of strokes taken by each competitor is all that matters.

    

[Garland Bayley]

The concept of "in regulation" is important. If we accept that only very good players can reach every green in regulation and thus the average hacker needs to lay up on most holes, then we accept a boring golf experience for 90% of the golfing population. ...

More BS. If the game is boring to you, quit.

[Kevin Lynch]

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.

I'm guessing that people who can't get past the idea of par as a fluid concept (i.e. 1/2 par holes, holes playing in unusual weather conditions) will be the same people who can't get on board with regulation as anything other than "par - 2."

But the idea of a 3 + 1 hole is a smart way to look at "regulation" if that is what suits your game.  I like the idea of the layup being there as an option for short hitters, but I don't know if you can ever make it the preferred route (since there will always be people who can execute the "traditional" regulation approach).

I'm not sure if I can think of a good par 4 where the "layup" is the preferred approach.  Perhaps a long par 4 with 30 yards of water in front and a very shallow green (which makes it virtually impossible to pull off the approach from any distance).  Maybe the Road Hole with a back-left pin is the type of hole you'd be thinking of, though.

I'll have to think some more about it - got to run to dinner now.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

And you are playing against yourself in your past plays. You are not playing against the course! That's just nonsense.

[Bill_Yates]

Par is only relevant when playing against the course. When playing against the field or playing against a single player, the total number of strokes taken by each competitor is all that matters.

Playing golf against the course is one of the stupidest ideas in the world.  

No-one seriously plays darts against the dart board, or has a rowing race against the lake.  

With all the outside vagaries that affect the difficulty of a golf course from day to day - wind, temperature, pin position, green speed, etc - the idea of playing against the course without any reference to how other other golfers are tackling the same conditions is ridiculous.  

No allowance for this sort of stupidity should be made in the design of a golf course.  

I'd say it's when you play by the rules and keep score - whether you are alone or not.

And that's why you are wrong  

Nice try David.

Unlike your close-minded thinking, the game of golf generously accommodates all manner of play.

Golf course architects need only design the best courses they can on the land they are given.  When done correctly, as most are, those courses can thrill and entertain players of all levels, and present challenges to golfers playing in matches or stroke play with other golfers, as well as, those playing alone against the challenges, risks and rewards presented by the design of the course itself (as all players do anyway just by being on the course).  

Also, perhaps you could at least come up with sports analogies that are comparing similar sports. Throwing darts, rowing, and hitting tennis balls against a wall is a far cry from playing golf and competing against the design, strategies and obstacles built into the course you are playing.

Skiing down a mountain alone is still skiing, and golfing on a golf course alone is still golfing.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.  
...

There is a lot of criticism here about the high handicappers that want to play from the tips. Excessive length does not make the game unenjoyable. Forced carries over water, and searching for balls in excessive rough because playing corridors are too narrow make the game unenjoyable IMO.

[Sean_A]

This has turned rather bizarre.  "Regulation" is nothing more than a statistic.  Just as with "par", it shouldn't be a driver of decision-making.  Whether it is or not is entirely down to the individual, but if one falls into that trap of statistics and playing against par, I don't have much time for their PoV in terms of architecture because I believe that sort of thinking will lead to a reduction of variety - architecture's worst enemy.  It doesn't bother me if that is what they want to do, but it doesn't impress me either.   

I play some par 4s that I can only hope to hit in two very rarely.  Foxy and Sea Headrig come to mind.  Would I want to play the holes shorter to make them easier to hit in two?  For me, the answer is no.  Great architecture needs holes like this. 

Ciao

[Jud_T]

GJ,

A couple 3 holes that can't be reached in "reg" are one thing, but if almost every hole involves Driver/fairway metal or a layup it becomes tedious fast.  Variety is the spice not one long par 4 after another. Overall length relative to ability matters.

[Garland Bayley]

GJ,

A couple 3 holes that can't be reached in "reg" are one thing, but if almost every hole involves Driver/fairway metal or a layup it becomes tedious fast.  Variety is the spice not one long par 4 after another. Overall length relative to ability matters.

It may seem tedious to you, but there are millions and millions of golfers that play that way and love it.
Overall length to ability does not matter if you love golf.

[Michael Blake]

There is a lot of criticism here about the high handicappers that want to play from the tips. Excessive length does not make the game unenjoyable.

It's not enjoyable for the all the groups playing behind the high handicappers, due to their slow play as a result of choosing to play from the tips/wrong tees. 

[Garland Bayley]

There is a lot of criticism here about the high handicappers that want to play from the tips. Excessive length does not make the game unenjoyable.

It's not enjoyable for the all the groups playing behind the high handicappers, due to their slow play as a result of choosing to play from the tips/wrong tees. 

That's funny, I have always found it is the low handicappers grinding for every stroke that slow things down. They simply don't have a proper perspective on the game. The high handicapper knows he is not going to get that stroke so there is no use grinding for it.
My regular group has handicaps 21, 22, 23, and 8. The 8 is by far the slowest.

Of course that has to be taken with a bit tongue in cheek.

Slow play is more a function of a players personality than it is of his handicap. If the high handicapper only takes 10 seconds per stroke, then he can take 30 extra strokes and only cost 5 extra minutes.

[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?

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?

A 'Proxie" is closest to the pin in regulation, short for proximity. Keeps things interesting from the fairway or tee, especially if your partner is laying 2 more than everyone else.

[Doug Siebert]

From a design standpoint, if the architect thinks in terms of creating a par 3, par 4 or par 5, does that necessarily mean that "he" must think in terms of the number of shots it should take a scratch golfer to put the ball on the green, e.g., two shots for a par four?  Is it possible (taking the meaning of that word anyway one chooses) for an architect to conceive and design a par four as, maybe, three to the green, and one putt?  Or, one to the green, and three putts?

You can design such holes, but I think you'll find the "three to the green and one putt" to be significantly less popular than the "one to the green and three putt".

There are a lot of par 4s of the former variety - we on GCA tend to know them as par 4 1/2s.  For some reason even many on GCA seem to love them a lot more when they are listed on the card as a par 5 rather than a par 4   There's another way to get one, that makes a one putt much more likely via a ridiculously tiny green.  Those of us in the midwest who have cow pasture courses about that were converted from sand greens probably have such holes around us already.  One around here has a 227 par 4 "dogleg" with a roughly circular pushup green that is less than 30 feet across at its widest.  It's the closest I've seen to what I'm describing, though even quartering into the prevailing wind 227 yards isn't what it used to be using today's equipment.  I'm sure it was much more difficult played with wooden woods and lumpy balata balls when they grassed the greens in the late 60s.

On the other hand, consider TOC sized greens with a driveable par 4.  Make the distance like the (non-Open tees) 9th, but using one of the giant double greens like the 8/10th, but angled with the widest part front on, so it is around 100 yards deep.  Thus you might need only 220 yards or so to drive the front edge, but could be left with a nearly 100 yard putt if you did so and the pin was at the back edge.

I'm sure a LOT of golfers would love the latter, because they could say the drove the green of a par 4 and had an eagle putt, something many would otherwise never do due to lack of distance, lack of direction, or both.  The fact that they might follow it up with a three or even four putt would probably dim their enthusiasm for it only a little, I'd guess.

Unfortunately the maintenance for either the super tiny green or the super giant green makes them only practical at rather exclusive clubs that see little play (not that the cow pasture course I'm talking about is that, but those tiny greens don't exactly putt true, especially from below the hole, so they aren't really "one putt" greens)

[Paul Gray]

Regulation, surely, is nothing more than a rough guide for the scratch golfer, all else being equal. If a player wishes to ignore it or, conversely, slavishly follow it despite never driving the ball more than 200 yards, so be it. As for pandering to the masses by way of endlessly building more tees and thereby allowing everyone to thing they can break 70, maybe we should introduce some sort of handicap system instead. Oh.   with just a little

[Kyle Harris]

 
What?

Disagree. Fully. All of the above statements are just as arbitrary as the concept of par. The sport is about making it to the hole in the least amount of strokes, period. By playing against someone, you're just moving a standard for play away from par and on to the skill of another.

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.

You can play against the course and neglect par. Ever hear of trying for a personal best? Golf as a sport makes the conditions part of the challenge, and overcoming them without any real change to result is what the sport is all about.

Kyle,

If you think that daily conditions don't affect a player's score, I don't know what to say.  Personal bests, course records, etc are a part of most sports,  but they are always a side-show, not the main event. The main event is winning.  The idea that golfers can play against the course is the antithesis of great course architecture.  Great golf courses offer a variety of challenges from day to day and course to course.  The standardisation of golf course into 1, 2, and 3 shot holes, course ratings, slopes, handicaps, etc has done more to harm the game of golf than any other modern invention.

Dredging this up because this is a rather bad misrepresentation of my point. I hope to clarify.

Firstly, the SPORT of golf is solely about placing the ball from tee to hole in the most efficient manner possible. This requires no outside competition. Much like a hunter does not need anything other than a quarry to bag. A golfer can hunt the hole alone and the resulting score is quite meaningful.

The GAME of golf is where competition with others enters into the fray, and as a result the more gamey rules like concessions and teeing order are necessary. Nobody will convince me, however, that a format where the player may voluntarily remove himself from playing a hole is the more "pure" or "sporty" version of golf.

The sport of golf requires fairly little rules and outside influence. The game of golf requires rules, most of which are quite arbitrary, to ensure a level playing field.

If you need further clarification, think of the differences in context between "sportsmanship" and "gamesmanship."

Secondly, I did not say that day-to-day variance have no influence. I said that a sporting golfer will make sure that the day-to-day variances have no impact on score. Therefore, the sporting nature of the game is that the golfer will use a considerable skillset to overcome that day's difficulties with no apparent effect to the final result. A golf that can score a 4 on a 450 yard hole into a headwind the day after scoring a 4 on the same hole in calm conditions is demonstrating significant skill. That day-to-day variance is the very heart of the test of a golfer's skillset.

A competitor simply changes what is "par-value" for that particular hole or course given the format and is really no different than what is printed on the scorecard.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

I would say the exact opposite is the case.  Sport is by definition competitive and by definition the course isn't a competitor. 

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

I would say the exact opposite is the case.  Sport is by definition competitive and by definition the course isn't a competitor. 

Ciao

From which source or definitions?

I am using the ideas of Max Behr and the 19th century concept of sport.

Soccer, football, baseball are all games.

Golf, hunting, mountain climbing are all sport.

The former lists all have arbitrary boundaries and rules which emphasize the particular skills the game seeks to employ.

The latter are relatively open-ended and results based with comparatively fewer definitions and requirements. 

In the former list the competitors can directly impede the progress of the opposition.

In the latter, the competitors cannot.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

I would say the exact opposite is the case.  Sport is by definition competitive and by definition the course isn't a competitor. 

Ciao

From which source or definitions?

I am using the ideas of Max Behr and the 19th century concept of sport.

Soccer, football, baseball are all games.

Golf, hunting, mountain climbing are all sport.

The former lists all have arbitrary boundaries and rules which emphasize the particular skills the game seeks to employ.

The latter are relatively open-ended and results based with comparatively fewer definitions and requirements. 

In the former list the competitors can directly impede the progress of the opposition.

In the latter, the competitors cannot.

Kyle

Max Behr is not my guru for golf or life.  As with all matters dealing with definitions, rather than turning to MB, I instead rely upon the experts.  Look up sport in the OED.  Competition is an integral aspect of the definition.  I don't know of anybody except a few GCA wingnuts who determine the definition of sport by determining first if competitors can impede on the progress of each other.  Then again, I don't often ask people to define sport - tee hee. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()