[Garland Bayley]

The USGA defines Scratch and Bogey golfers for handicap calculation purposes.
For scratch men, drives are 250 yards and succeeding shots are 220 yards. For
bogey men, drives are 200 yards and succeeding shots are 170 yards. For scratch
women, drives are 210 yards and succeeding shots are 190 yards. For bogey women,
drives are 150 yards and succeeding shots are 130 yards.

We can further define Birdie golfers. For birdie men, drives are 300 yards and
succeeding shots are 270 yards. Birdie women would most likely be covered by
the scratch men category. After all, so many members of this site have stated
that they prefer to watch the professional women golf, because they can relate
to their games.

Me? I prefer to watch women whether they are golfing or not.

These definitions define one, two, three, four, five, six, and seven shot holes.
Birdie Men: <300, <570, <840, <1110
Scratch Men; Birdie Women: <250, <470, <690, <910
Scratch Women: <210, <400, <590, <780, <970
Bogey Men: <200, <370, <540, <710, <880
Bogey Women: <150, <280, <410, <540, <670, <790, <920

The yardages of the holes in the twelve hole version of The New Course are
692, 511, 557, 445, 868, 225, 518, 453, 533, 727, 431, 635
Birdie Men: 1 1-shot hole, 7 2-shot holes, 1 3-shot hole, and 3 4-shot holes
Regulation play would yield 54 strokes!

Scratch Men; Birdie Women: 1 1-shot hole, 3 2-shot holes, 5 3-shot holes,
and 3 4-shot holes
Regulation play would yield 58 strokes!

Scratch Women: 0 1-shot holes, 1 2-shot hole, 7 3-shot holes, 3 4-shot holes,
and 1 5-shot holes
Regulation play would yield 64 strokes!

Bogey Men: 0 1-shot holes, 1 2-shot hole, 6 3-shot holes, 3 4-shot holes, and
two 5-shot holes
Regulation play would yield 66 strokes. These guys have be struggling to shoot
90! Now tell me they wouldn't love to shoot 66.

Bogey Women: 0 1-shot holes, 1 2-shot hole, 0 3-shot holes, 6 4-shot holes, 2
5-shot holes, 2 6-shot holes, and 1 7-shot holes
Regulation play would yield 79. These women would worship Bernard Darwin and
love me!

By jove, I think we have just solved the slow play problem. 2/3 the putts and
way fewer strokes. Who can argue with that?
 
For those of you that think seven shot holes are ridiculous, I have played with
80 something ladies for which a par five from the "ladies" tees was a seven shot
hole. These ladies love playing golf. Our club has a weekly "two ball" event.
More accurately it should be called four ball eightsomes. Commonly referred to
as hit and giggle. When the husband of the couple that sponsored us into the
club became too infirm to play golf anymore, I played these events with the wife
since my wife does not play. So I got quite an exposure to elderly ladies who
love the game.

Another oft recited complaint here is old men that won't move up tees when they
lose distance. They are attributed with having egos that won't let them move up.
I disagree! They love golf! They love hitting the ball! Why would they reduce
the things they love just because they aged a bit?

[JESII]

Yes there are quite a lot of golfers that take several more than the "par" number to get to a green...but are you sure they prefer it that way?


Would not the group of elderly ladies love a scaled version of the course that let them hit 2 or 3 shots and be on or around the green?


In other words, they do love golf, but I suspect it's for different reasons then you love it, which are different still from why I love it.


This is what makes golf great!

[Garland Bayley]

Yes there are quite a lot of golfers that take several more than the "par" number to get to a green...but are you sure they prefer it that way?

I'm sure they prefer it to moving forward, and playing less golf. I'm sure they prefer it to moving forward, and standing around waiting on others. The progress through a round doesn't speed up because they moved forward. The group in front of them is not going anywhere faster.

Would not the group of elderly ladies love a scaled version of the course that let them hit 2 or 3 shots and be on or around the green?

They have handicaps. They long ago stopped worrying about being on or near the green in 2 or 3 shots. One 80 something that was heavier tried to get them to move forward, because she was getting exhausted just from swinging the club. The more fit ladies refused.


In other words, they do love golf, but I suspect it's for different reasons then you love it, which are different still from why I love it.


This is what makes golf great!

[SL_Solow]

I always thought the object of the game was to hit the ball into the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  As such, the ability to hole out, i.e. putting, will always be an important aspect unless you decide to fundamentally change the game.  Such a change would give the long hitter an even greater advantage than that which is enjoyed today.  Incidentally, if putting and the short game are less enjoyable, why then the trend toward courses that can be played with a putter (or perhaps a putter and a wedge) that we see being implemented at several of our most architecturally respected golf destinations?

[Garland Bayley]

I always thought the object of the game was to hit the ball into the hole in the fewest amount of strokes.  As such, the ability to hole out, i.e. putting, will always be an important aspect unless you decide to fundamentally change the game.

The game is the same. It used to be played with far more three and four shot holes as the essay points out. They still had "to hit the ball into the hole in the fewest amount of strokes." This is more about restoring the game to what it was than any new change to the game. It used to be that fewer strokes were taken on the putting green relative to being taken elsewhere.

Such a change would give the long hitter an even greater advantage than that which is enjoyed today. 

If the implements were rolled back, then the long hitter's advantage would be lessened by this change than what he would obtain with the current implements. Many people advocate for rolling them back to shorten courses. Your observation would just be another reason to roll them back.

Incidentally, if putting and the short game are less enjoyable, why then the trend toward courses that can be played with a putter (or perhaps a putter and a wedge) that we see being implemented at several of our most architecturally respected golf destinations?

It would seem that at Bandon, with their clever cup holders for the Punch Bowl, that they want them to spend more on punch, and not head back to the room to watch Golf Channel.

[Garland Bayley]

Two experienced ladies that don't hit it as far as they once did are playing a
match on the twelve hole revision to the New Course. Through the first four
holes they are even, and commence playing the longest hole at 868 yards, the
fifth. Ms. O is playing the odd, so she hits first. Ms. L is playing the like,
so when she plays she is level (like) strokewise with Ms. O. They have no need
to carry one of those beaded strings that many of my lady friends of age 80+
carried to keep track of the strokes taken, because they are simply alternating
plays and automatically know how they stand by who's turn it is to hit. Both of
them reach the fairway with their tee shots, which are shown in the hole layout
below.

Hole5of12 by Garland Bayley, on Flickr

Ms. O, because she is playing the odd on this hole hits first. She tends to play
up the center of most holes and trusts her accuracy to lay her shot between two
bunkers, and short of a third. Ms. L chooses to go left since the hole doglegs
left, and there is only one bunker to catch a mishit near the line she has
chosen. Progress can be seen above.

Ms. O plays the odd, followed by Ms. L playing the like with Ms. L now closer to
the the hole, because she cut some length off by playing the very inside of the
dogleg.

They once again play the odd and the like, with Ms. O not reaching short grass,
while Ms. L manages to gain the short grass.

Ms. O plays the odd with the rough reducing her swing speed, thereby causing
her to finish 40 yards shorter than she would otherwise have. Ms. L plays the
like again pressing the inside of the route of the hole's dogleg, thereby
gaining additional yardage on Ms. O.

Ms. O hits her best shot up the center of the fairway to put the green within
reach for an approach. Ms. L now plays her play to the center of the fairway
to optimize her chances on the approach.

With the longer approach Ms. O hits her approach onto the green below the hole.
With approximately 50 yards less on her approach, which for these ladies would
be about 7 or 8 clubs less, Ms. L hits her approach to five or six feet from
the hole.

Ms. O strokes a great putt, leaving it a few inches from the hole. Ms. L holes
her putt, and she knows she has won the hole, because by holing it on the like
she has taken as many strokes as Ms. O, but Ms. O has yet to hole out.

Ms. L is now one up.
 

[JESII]

Hold on…let me go pay my cart fee for this mess…

[Edward Glidewell]

I think the USGA distances for men's bogey golfers (and probably all golfers) are outdated. I've played with a lot of 15+ handicap golfers (including me) and all of them can hit their drives at least 215, and some of them can hit it 240-250. My guess is that's due to the tremendous equipment gains over the past 20 years (i.e. clubs are so much easier to hit solidly), but regardless of the reason, the idea that the average bogey golfer can only hit a driver 200 yards doesn't fit my experience. The only exception that I've seen is 70+ year old golfers.

[Garland Bayley]

I think the USGA distances for men's bogey golfers (and probably all golfers) are outdated. I've played with a lot of 15+ handicap golfers (including me) and all of them can hit their drives at least 215, and some of them can hit it 240-250. My guess is that's due to the tremendous equipment gains over the past 20 years (i.e. clubs are so much easier to hit solidly), but regardless of the reason, the idea that the average bogey golfer can only hit a driver 200 yards doesn't fit my experience. The only exception that I've seen is 70+ year old golfers.

It all depends on who you play with. I've seen lots of young men lacking in athleticism that couldn't hit it 200. Others might beat 200 if they could hit it straight, and not a banana. Old guys fail to reach the standard. And, equipment changes provide diminishing returns for the weaker golfers. In fact, once your swing speed reduces enough you reach a point that a fresh wound balata would go farther than a fresh ProV1.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think the USGA distances for men's bogey golfers (and probably all golfers) are outdated. I've played with a lot of 15+ handicap golfers (including me) and all of them can hit their drives at least 215, and some of them can hit it 240-250. My guess is that's due to the tremendous equipment gains over the past 20 years (i.e. clubs are so much easier to hit solidly), but regardless of the reason, the idea that the average bogey golfer can only hit a driver 200 yards doesn't fit my experience. The only exception that I've seen is 70+ year old golfers.

It's not really all that important as the course rating system takes into account hazards the entire length of the hole for the bogey golfer. the 200 yards and the distance of their second shot matters for lie/stance in the "landing area" as well as whether a hole plays as "longer" than a two-shot hole… and for a bogey golfer, a 430-yard hole is clearly going to be more difficult than a 360-yard hole.

The standards are not intended to be true "averages" (though they're closer than you probably realize), as they would change over time, but more just a functionally operational means of rating courses. The CR system takes something that's quite complex, boils it down to two numbers, and does a pretty darn good job of doing it.

[Michael Moore]

automatically know how they stand by who's turn it is to hit

What if one of them takes an extra shot in a fairway bunker?

[Tim Martin]

I think the USGA distances for men's bogey golfers (and probably all golfers) are outdated. I've played with a lot of 15+ handicap golfers (including me) and all of them can hit their drives at least 215, and some of them can hit it 240-250. My guess is that's due to the tremendous equipment gains over the past 20 years (i.e. clubs are so much easier to hit solidly), but regardless of the reason, the idea that the average bogey golfer can only hit a driver 200 yards doesn't fit my experience. The only exception that I've seen is 70+ year old golfers.

In fact, once your swing speed reduces enough you reach a point that a fresh wound balata would go farther than a fresh ProV1.

I would think the balata would go farther offline with it's propensity to curve considerably more than the ProV1. At lower swing speeds maybe not as much but still a factor.

[Garland Bayley]

automatically know how they stand by who's turn it is to hit

What if one of them takes an extra shot in a fairway bunker?

When there becomes a mismatch in strokes taken they simply keep track of the difference in strokes taken. In your question, the person taking the extra stroke in the bunker would be a shot behind.

[Garland Bayley]

 In fact, once your swing speed reduces enough you reach a point that a fresh wound balata would go farther than a fresh ProV1.

I would think the balata would go farther offline with it's propensity to curve considerably more than the ProV1. At lower swing speeds maybe not as much but still a factor.

Having played with the "codgers" group with ages into the 90s at my club, it would seem to me that the loss of motion and strength would prevent them from producing slice or hook swings. I saw no evidence that they could curve the ball. And, it is these old codgers that swing slow enough to gain distance from a spinier ball.

[Ira Fishman]

This discussion gives me another reason to conclude that as an aging not very good golfer, I was wise to decide to seldom keep score. Putting on interesting greens gives me great enjoyment, and three (or more) putting does not diminish from that enjoyment because I am not focused on my score. We had the good fortune to play some truly interesting greens in 2021. Putting on them was at least as much fun and rewarding as making my way to them.


Ira

[Niall C]

I feel the soul of golf is the two-shot hole because each shot effects, and is effected by the others. The hole location dictates where you should play from and your ability to recognize and execute should dictate success. That said, I think a course loaded with holes on the border of 2-3 shots would/could be most interesting...and considering the length, 12 of them would be fine.

This is very well stated, and the main reason why par-4 holes are my favorites, too.

I agree with all that also and also the converse that a lot of 3 shot holes can be deadly dull if getting on in 3 isn't much of a challenge but getting on in 2 isn't a possibility.


Niall

[David_Tepper]

It seems to me golf is a "target game" (not to be confused with "target golf"): the targets being fairways, greens and holes.


For me, the most rewarding/satisfying shots in golf (in no particular order) are a) hitting the green from 150+ yards, b) hitting a pitch or chip shot close from inside 100 yards and c) sinking a putt longer than 20 feet. Executing any of those shots well provides far more enjoyment than hitting a solid 2nd shot on a long par-5.

The last thing golf needs is fewer greens. 




 

[Peter Pallotta]

I take too many putts because I'm not hitting my irons close enough. And I'm not hitting them close enough because I'm using mid-irons instead of short-irons. And I'm using mid irons instead of scoring clubs because I don't drive it very far off the tee. In other words: I'm a poor putter because I'm a short hitter.
 
Luckily for us poor putters, Taylormade has just introduced its new Stealth technology and Callaway its Rogue Max. I believe the multi-layer carbon construction will add ball speed off the entire face, and allow for more weight to be positioned lower and further back to increase the MOI.

[Niall C]

David


Amen to that.


Garland


I think you are falling into Mr Darwin's trap. Darwin was a precursor to Ben Hogan, both very good golfers whose putting wasn't the strongest and who therefore resented that other "lesser" players could gain strokes on them on the green. You will note the proceeding essay in Darwin's book is entitled Putting Paralysis. Long holes are fine as long as they are well done and limited in number.


Niall

[Tim Martin]

 In fact, once your swing speed reduces enough you reach a point that a fresh wound balata would go farther than a fresh ProV1.

I would think the balata would go farther offline with it's propensity to curve considerably more than the ProV1. At lower swing speeds maybe not as much but still a factor.

Having played with the "codgers" group with ages into the 90s at my club, it would seem to me that the loss of motion and strength would prevent them from producing slice or hook swings. I saw no evidence that they could curve the ball. And, it is these old codgers that swing slow enough to gain distance from a spinier ball.

Garland-It was interesting to read that the balata would go farther with reduced swing speeds as that was something I was unaware of. Being a “codger” obviously has it’s advantages.

[Garland Bayley]

David


Amen to that.


Garland


I think you are falling into Mr Darwin's trap. Darwin was a precursor to Ben Hogan, both very good golfers whose putting wasn't the strongest and who therefore resented that other "lesser" players could gain strokes on them on the green. You will note the proceeding essay in Darwin's book is entitled Putting Paralysis. Long holes are fine as long as they are well done and limited in number.


Niall

Nope Niall,

I am not falling trap to Darwin. As Sully wrote

... they do love golf, but I suspect it's for different reasons then you love it, which are different still from why I love it.


This is what makes golf great!

I have always preferred par fives as they let me swing away more than par fours. I, and just let me quote Anna Rawson on this, "just love hitting golf balls."

I am an instance of someone who, as people joke about, grew up thinking golf was a game of long only to be eventually told it is a game of straight.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

Couldn't agree more with the latest assessments from Niall and David, spot on.

I believe it was Erik who once provided the stat that on average half of all strokes for any given round occur from roughly 50 yards or less from the hole, whether that be in the form of a chip, pitch, sand shot, putt, etc.  Your proposal would eliminate a massive chunk of those shot attempts, and in the process significantly neuter the ways in which golfers can differentiate themselves from others.

But if you're looking for a mostly one dimensional way to play the game (with Drivers and 3 woods) and evaluate yourself against others in that fashion, then it already exists.  Just head to your local Topshot facility, where its all right there with scoring included.

Until then I will stick with the assertion that more variety is better as it applies to playing golf, whether competitively or just for fun.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Couldn't agree more with the latest assessments from Niall and David, spot on.

Given your skill level, you need to quit this site. You have been drinking too much of the Kool-aid about ball positioning off the tee, and best angle of approach on this site. I would note that you can't accomplish these things, so why are you adhering to the theory that golf is best played on two shot holes. You claim to be a good putter, but I saw little of that when you were under pressure to produce it in our matches.

I believe it was Erik who once provided the stat that on average half of all strokes for any given round occur from roughly 50 yards or less from the hole, whether that be in the form of a chip, pitch, sand shot, putt, etc.  Your proposal would eliminate a massive chunk of those shot attempts, and in the process significantly neuter the ways in which golfers can differentiate themselves from others.

So what are you saying? That golf progressed from a game where three and four shot holes were the norm to one where chipping, pitching, sand blasting, and putting were prized? Then clearly golf for you should be done mostly at pitch and putts. That way you can differentiate yourself from others more easily. Unfortunately, my observation is that your differentiation would be in the wrong direction. You didn't earn the nickname Sandman for being good at sand shots!

But if you're looking for a mostly one dimensional way to play the game (with Drivers and 3 woods) and evaluate yourself against others in that fashion, then it already exists.  Just head to your local Topshot facility, where its all right there with scoring included.

Have you ever been to a Topshot facility? It just poorly replicates a real golf experience with scoring based on ball positioning including scoring short pitches. It doesn't give points for how much deflection you can make in the net at the end of the range. And, it leaves out your favorite, putting.

Until then I will stick with the assertion that more variety is better as it applies to playing golf, whether competitively or just for fun.

More variety? You are defending variety with a somewhat restricted set of typically 22% 1-shot holes, 56% 2-shot holes, and 22% 3-shot holes, against a proposal of  perhaps 12.5% 1-shot hole, 25% 2-shot holes, 25% 3-shot holes, 25% 4-shot holes, and 12.5% 5-shot holes. The variety would be in the layout of the holes on the ground in either case. With many golf courses the plethora of 2-shot holes leads to a lack of variety. I've played golf courses where many of the par fours could have been left out by just giving you transport from the green back to the tee to experience the same thing again. That's why there is a Doak 2, and often 3 rating for courses. Doglegs, bunkers, hazards, terrain, etc. can make variety. However, they can also be used to create lack of variety, e.g., by repeating 370 yards, dogleg at 250, bunker front left and right on greens always sloping back to front. I played a course where that scheme was replicated almost exactly on the first two holes. You could have dropped one hole on top of the other, and seen little to differentiate them. It had 16 back to front sloping greens with bunker left and right, and two flat table top greens. I think a tour pro may have designed it.

[Garland Bayley]

Furthermore Niall,

I think you are mistaken in using Ben Hogan to try to refute my advocacy. Ben was the ultimate ball positioning golfer for whom placing the drive in the best position for the approach was something no golfer could match. If Broadie had been around back then, it is likely that Ben would have usurped Tiger Woods on the best approach shot hitter in Broadie's stats. Ben had to give up aiming at flags, because he hit them too often to deleterious effect. And, he was not a bad putter, as you seem to imply. His biography suggests that the eye damage caused by his automobile accident made it difficult for him to focus, thereby causing him to stand over putts too long leading to speculation that he had lost confidence in his putting.

Speaking of Broadie, his analysis seems to indicate that many of you are mislead in thinking you should be positioning your ball for the best approach. Are you listening Sully? It seems a two dimensional strategy of driver, wedge is more appropriate. All I am trying to do is add a third dimension, i.e., driver, fairway wood, wedge.

Also, with much more variation in the hole lengths, there will be much more variation in what approach shots are hit!

[Edward Glidewell]

I think the USGA distances for men's bogey golfers (and probably all golfers) are outdated. I've played with a lot of 15+ handicap golfers (including me) and all of them can hit their drives at least 215, and some of them can hit it 240-250. My guess is that's due to the tremendous equipment gains over the past 20 years (i.e. clubs are so much easier to hit solidly), but regardless of the reason, the idea that the average bogey golfer can only hit a driver 200 yards doesn't fit my experience. The only exception that I've seen is 70+ year old golfers.

It's not really all that important as the course rating system takes into account hazards the entire length of the hole for the bogey golfer. the 200 yards and the distance of their second shot matters for lie/stance in the "landing area" as well as whether a hole plays as "longer" than a two-shot hole… and for a bogey golfer, a 430-yard hole is clearly going to be more difficult than a 360-yard hole.

The standards are not intended to be true "averages" (though they're closer than you probably realize), as they would change over time, but more just a functionally operational means of rating courses. The CR system takes something that's quite complex, boils it down to two numbers, and does a pretty darn good job of doing it.

Oh sure, I wasn't suggesting that it meant the course rating system was flawed. Just that I don't think someone should expect a bogey golfer to only drive it 200 yards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()