[Jeff Fortson]

A player has "options" so long as he/she can pull off the opted shot.  Even if it is a shot the player can only pull off 1 in 1000 times, it is still an "option", no matter what handicap a player is.  

A 25 handicapper trying to cut a 3-wood high over some trees and over water to a green that is 40 feet deep and 260 yards away is technically an "option".  However, it is an "option" that if the player tries to use it, he/she will 99.9% of the time unload his/her bag of golf balls and leave themselves with nothing to play with except for, themselves.

The theoretical and real worlds seem to rarely collide and this question of "options" is a scenario that doesn't buck that reality.  

Everyone has options in theory, from Tiger Woods to my mom who is a 40 handicap.  The difference is that my mom needs to carry an infinite amount of golf balls and the ability to make time not progress to attempt the "options" that Tiger would use on a normal basis.


Jeff F.

[George Pazin]

Jax -

While I appreciate the Freudian compliment, I would say I'd be surprised if you have many more options than me. I can hit the ball plenty far, particularly my irons, and can hit a pretty good variety of short game shots. Where we differ is our success rates, and even more, the magnitude of our misses. But that still doesn't mean the option isn't there.

Patrick -

I apologize for attempting to engage you in a discussion of whether options are indeed a figment of the imagination. I didn't realize you were simply trying to make the (incredibly obvious) point that more options exist for better golfers and that they are able to better capitalize on said options.

[TEPaul]

"They are morons."

Pat said this in response to ChrisB in the end of post #74. That pretty much sums up Pat's understanding of what some options, particularly high risk and high reward options, are to most golfers and Pat's entire misguided premise on this thread. If they choose that option and they fail Pat believes not only are they morons but for some odd reason the option they chose and failed with mysteriously never existed.

This is beyond hilarious and it's also a good way to completely denigrate one of the most interesting aspects of golf and its architecture---that being outrageous temptation. One may fail at it 99 times out of 100 but that one success is a large part of the mysteriousness and the maddening allure of the entire game of golf. That one time may be the best memory some golfer ever had of the sport!

Take that away and what have you got? That's a good question! But don't ask Pat Mucci because as long as he continues to press this ridiculous premise of his there's no way he could have a reasonable answer!

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

The medical analogy is a good one, because it differentiates an option in theory from an option in reality.
It shows the absurdity of arguing for remote or far fetched possibilities.

Another example would be for me to bet you that you can't walk across a 50 foot long, 4 X 4 piece of lumber.

As it lies on the ground or two feet off the ground, you'll take my bet for $ 20.
But, if I elevate that 4 X 4 off the ground, you'll start to have your doubts.  At 50 feet off the ground, 250 feet off the ground and 1000 feet off the ground, you won't take the bet, for any amount.  Why because it magnifies the consequences for failure, despite the fact that nothing else about the physical challenge has changed.  It's still a 4 X 4, it's still 50 feet long, but, the real world consequence of electing to walk the 4 X 4 at 1,000 feet eliminates the option to the prudent person, hence the viable option doesn't exist.

If you are a PURIST when it comes to playing golf, you can relate to what I'm saying.  If you're not a PURIST you won't.

P.S.  Scrambles aren't golf.
       And, neither is the driving range.

[CHrisB]

ChrisB,

But even though you may carry the mentality of fighting for every shot and shooting the lowest you can every round, many golfers don't. Heck, many PGA Tour players don't.

I would disagree with the above statement.  I think most golfers want to hit the best shots and shoot the lowest score they can on any given day.

It appears to me that as the stakes get higher, you become more reluctant to consider different options of play, which I can agree is a tendency of many golfers. But you can't extend that to everyone else, because the fact is that many golfers (especially those who don't compete) just don't play golf that way.

I disagree with this, every golfer competes against the golf course if they're keeping score, and if they're not keeping score, they are not playing golf.

They'll continue to take the same risks, to try shots beyond their abilities, exercise their perceived options.

When you don't count your strokes, and try wild shots, you're not playing golf

Patrick,
If you believe what you wrote in your reply above, then there really is no point in further discussion, and I'll just have to conclude that you have a limited understanding of how the game is played by a large number of golfers (even PGA Tour players).

But I definitely agree with you on this--many people do take the game and particularly their score far too seriously, which does ultimately reduce options, sap creativity, and create problems both inside the mind and in life off the course if they're not careful. It's a sad way to play the game, in my opinion.

[George Pazin]

No one, purist or not, views a golf shot as life or death - anyone impying otherwise is kidding themselves.

I was going to try to use an example, but this argument is so silly that I'm not even going to waste my time.

I'm done.

[Jeff Fortson]

JakaB,

I'm not following you.

If you think I am stating that I think people should take extremely high risk shots in golf no matter what their skill level, then you misunderstood what I wrote.  

I was simply stating that this theory of "options" and the debate that has been going on is kind of pointless.  In theory, everyone has options.  In reality, some options will empty your bag of balls and leave you with nothing to play with.  In no way did I ever claim that I think someone should try to take a chance that is on the verge of impossibility.  Actually, I was claiming the opposite.

So, don't you worry.  I'll continue to raise my child as best as I can and you can keep on misunderstanding me.  

I'll ask you nicely, once, to leave my family out of topics that have nothing to do with family.  I like you a lot Barney, so please don't use my family members as fodder for your obscure agenda.


Jeff F.


My quote from above:

A 25 handicapper trying to cut a 3-wood high over some trees and over water to a green that is 40 feet deep and 260 yards away is technically an "option".  However, it is an "option" that if the player tries to use it, he/she will 99.9% of the time unload his/her bag of golf balls and leave themselves with nothing to play with except for, themselves.

Where am I endorsing high-risk behavior?

[JSlonis]

George- "no one, purist or not, views a golf shot as life or death"...you're correct...it is MUCH more important than that!

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,
 
You didnt respond to my post #63,  so I must assume that you agree with every word of it.  

But just in case, lets stop talking theory and start talking golf.
This is an aerial of Rustic's 2nd hole, 457 yd par 4.  The ground is slightly sloping from the upper left corner to the lower right corner, with the slope increasing from behind the bunkers to the lower right corner of the screen.



I've drawn a number of of lines with possible lines of play, best player (blue), decent player (red), novice (yellow).  The white line was my line of play this sunday, with a good wind at my back.

The approach is much easier from the golfers left, close to the out of bounds which parallels the entire fairway.  You can see the green, there is more room to run the ball in, and the green is more accepting of aerial shots.  Middle is safe, but there is a small swale which diagonally bisects the fairway and which may give a sidehill lie. In case you dont think the hole is wide enough for these options to be realistic, here is a photo of some of the landing area:



Do you really contend that a variety of golfers dont have options on this hole?  

[JakaB]

Jeff,

Sorry, I enjoy using analogies that tie golf with life....I feel sorry for people who can not enjoy the passion of failure...I failed in that post just like I fail in so many golf shots...I guess that topic is no longer an option.

[Lester George]

The first four of you to accept my invitation to play Kinloch Golf Club this spring, (anytime after April 25th, no weekends) are invited.  It will change your perspective on realistic options, I promise.  Just let me know.

Lester

[DMoriarty]

I dunno, Dave, to me, it sure looks like a pretty straightforward smash the crap out of the driver (but hang on a little so you don't hook it OB) hole, followed by a mid or probably short iron approach to the front part of the green and hope it releases to most pin positions.

This is all dictated by pin position.  Downwind to a front right pin, if you really need a birdie, maybe you'd flirt with the OB off the tee. Otherwise, I see no reason to do it.  And even then, I'd much rather hit the driver straight or a little right and try to carve the approach in there, than flirt with OB with the driver so as to get a straight shot at the front right pin.  The latter is a sucker trade, to me.

1.  Whatever you say Dave.  The point is you are making a choice.  Increased chance of birdie or easier par if you challenge the O.B. and succeed, try to two putt or scramble for a par if you dont.  

2.  My larger point wasnt about you, but about the weaker player who, according to Patrick and others, doesnt really have any options .  I see quite a few options for the weaker player, probably more than for the stronger player.  

[TEPaul]

George Pazin said;

"I'm done."

Me too George--just chalk this thread up to another Pat Mucci single gun shootout! How many times do we have to massacre this guy before he gets the picture he has no earthly idea what he's talking about on here?

Jeff Fortson said to JakaB;

"JakaB, I'm not following you."

Jeff, welcome to the crowd! There could be some hidden meaning in the things Barney says but to date I'm not aware of anyone who knows what that is!

It's David Moriarty that surprises me, though. I just can't imagine why he continues to try to argue with Pat---it's a waste of time, a dead end street, a virtual cul-de-sac, if he ever figures out how to get to Pat's house on that cul-de-sac there's just nobody home----ever!

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
I agree with Pat within the narrow band of his original post.
Making practical use of various play options is in direct proportion to talent. The overly talented could make use of any that present themselves but regularly limit their choice to the one best suited to their game while the extremely untalented have fewer choices due to their inability to execute, be it distance or placement.

I have no hard evidence but think that fewer courses are being designed with options in mind and advances in equipment have led to the demise of certain pre existing ones. Furthermore, I don't think Pat's thread was dealing with the value that options bring to the game. I think the one misleading part of that first post was his use of a hole to illustrate his point. If you look back at an early reply by Rich Goodale you'll see what I mean. In it he stated that the 14th at TOC really wasn't a very good poster child for options but then went on to list numerous ways in which it could be played.

When it comes to options, I say the more the merrier, especially when you 've botched plan "A". Maybe they should be called OOPStions?  
   

[T_MacWood]

There has to be a reasonable chance to properly execute the shot if it's to be an option, and I don't consider a 10 % chance to be good odds or a reasonable chance.
I certainly don't think that that percentage would cause one to risk the shot, if the outcome of the shot has any meaningful significance

I don’t think so….reasonable to an average 10 may not be reasonable to you….personality, intelligence, judgment, experience, golfing strengths, perceived golfing strengths, etc differ from golfer to golfer.

 “Meaningful significance” is also relative. Most golf is recreational…no money…no competition…it is normally man on man or man on golf course or man against himself. And the man on man may very well be match play…which again alters the dynamic of what is a prudent options.

Does the 36 handicap really have viable options? Yes, but different options from you or I. (And of course it also depends on the golf course…some courses present more options than others).

My mother—God rest her soul—was probably a 36. Although she was elderly and a little frail, she still had a long slow beautiful golf swing. The problem was she could hardly break an egg there was so little power. But she knew the game, and played it thoughtfully….that was especially true when it came to crossing streams or other similar hazards. Most times she would lay up, but when she was feeling bold and it gave it go she'd often switch to an old ball. I remember doing the same thing when I was a kid. We had options and not much game. One of the options many 24 or 36ers take is to buy a ball retreiver.
   

I think viable options are within the single digit handicapper's play and increase as the handicap nears zero. I’m not sure that is true. I get the impression most touring pros—especially the top pros—follow a well defined script. And the pinnacle of championship competition—US Open—presents almost no options (due to course set up)....the pros don’t like the risk/reward consequences….in that case the lower the handicap the fewer options....it wouldn't be prudent.

[Jeff Goldman]

Boy, I thought this was sort of obvious, but since nobody likes #10 at WS, let me try a hypothetical.  The question of options doesn't relate whether to try something with a 1 in 10 or 20 chance, but in the calculation of risk and reward for the risk.  For a real mediocre golfer, say 15.3 handicap   if he has a choice between having a "decent" chance of executing a certain shot that will give a "good" chance at par, or taking safe shot, that will leave a more difficult next shot, he has a choice.  Is he playing the course or a player?  Who is leading and where is his opponent?  How am I hitting the ball today?    If I don't pull off the risky shot, what does that leave me?  If I take the safe shot, how much harder is the next shot going to be??  While these choices may not appear to a true beginner, I think they are there on certain strategic courses for anyone who has a handicap of, say, 18-20 or below.  

Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

"They are morons."

Pat said this in response to ChrisB in the end of post #74. That pretty much sums up Pat's understanding of what some options, particularly high risk and high reward options, are to most golfers and Pat's entire misguided premise on this thread.

If they choose that option and they fail Pat believes not only are they morons but for some odd reason the option they chose and failed with mysteriously never existed.

That's not what I said.  I said, that if they don't have the ability to execute the perceived option, then it's not a viable option.  Tell me that you understand the difference.

This is beyond hilarious and it's also a good way to completely denigrate one of the most interesting aspects of golf and its architecture---that being outrageous temptation. One may fail at it 99 times out of 100 but that one success is a large part of the mysteriousness and the maddening allure of the entire game of golf. That one time may be the best memory some golfer ever had of the sport!

Attempting a shot that has a 1 in 100 chance of success isn't a realistic or viable option, it's fantasy at it's best.

Take that away and what have you got? That's a good question! But don't ask Pat Mucci because as long as he continues to press this ridiculous premise of his there's no way he could have a reasonable answer!

You've offered no CREDIBLE argument to refute my premise
other then to suggest that if there's a 1 in 100 chance of executing the shot, that it qualifies as a viable option, which is absurd.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Your post # 63 is easy to answer.

You stated that you were in a slump, which you indicated means that your ball striking is not up to your usual standards, thus you've chosen a different course of play.
Hence, your current ability offers you less playing latitude.
Absent the slump, you are capable of executing shots that you choose not to attempt in your current state.

I see no conflict.

With respect to the diagrams you've drawn, those are just lines overlayed on a golf hole, and have no relevance.

When the high handicapper gets up on the tee and slices one out of bounds, show me the options he had.

Anyone can draw lines, but, can a golfer hit the ball where he intends, with any degree of certainty.  I say NO, except for the LOW handicappers.

Jeff Fortson,

A 1 in 1,000 chance isn't a viable option, it's hoping for a miracle, and there is a difference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

There has to be a reasonable chance to properly execute the shot if it's to be an option, and I don't consider a 10 % chance to be good odds or a reasonable chance.
I certainly don't think that that percentage would cause one to risk the shot, if the outcome of the shot has any meaningful significance

I don’t think so….reasonable to an average 10 may not be reasonable to you….personality, intelligence, judgment, experience, golfing strengths, perceived golfing strengths, etc differ from golfer to golfer.

Handicaps cut through all of the above, which is subjective, and are usually reflective of the golfers abilities.

 “Meaningful significance” is also relative. Most golf is recreational…no money…no competition…it is normally man on man or man on golf course or man against himself. And the man on man may very well be match play…which again alters the dynamic of what is a prudent options.

I'm not sure that's true, all too often golfers play the man instead of the hole, and end up with a surprise ending

Does the 36 handicap really have viable options? Yes, but different options from you or I. (And of course it also depends on the golf course…some courses present more options than others).

I understand that a 36 handicap will play a different game then a zero handicap, but, on each shot the 36 handicap faces, they have a very limited number or no options at all, whereas, from the same position, the zero handicap would have more options due to their talent factor.

My mother—God rest her soul—was probably a 36. Although she was elderly and a little frail, she still had a long slow beautiful golf swing. The problem was she could hardly break an egg there was so little power. But she knew the game, and played it thoughtfully….that was especially true when it came to crossing streams or other similar hazards. Most times she would lay up, but when she was feeling bold and it gave it go she'd often switch to an old ball. I remember doing the same thing when I was a kid. We had options and not much game. One of the options many 24 or 36ers take is to buy a ball retreiver.
   
A prudent choice

I think viable options are within the single digit handicapper's play and increase as the handicap nears zero. I’m not sure that is true. I get the impression most touring pros—especially the top pros—follow a well defined script. And the pinnacle of championship competition—US Open—presents almost no options (due to course set up)....the pros don’t like the risk/reward consequences….in that case the lower the handicap the fewer options....it wouldn't be prudent.

If you believe that PGA Tour pros have less shot making abilities then a 10 handicap then perhaps one could buy into your theory.  But, I happen to believe that they possess incredible talent and the ability to hit a zillion shots that a 10 handicap can't even imagine.  That they choose to hit a shot with the highest probability of success doesn't mean that they didn't have the option to hit other shots, they just choose the most effiecient for each shot.

[TEPaul]

"Attempting a shot that has a 1 in 100 chance of success isn't a realistic or viable option, it's fantasy at it's best."

Pat:

Leaving to you, or me, to decide what a realistic or viable option is to any golfer, no matter what you think the percentage of success may be is what is fantasy! And thank God golf is that way. If it were any other way it would probably devolve into a complete skill dependent game and a boring one at that! Somehow I think any good golf architect understands that and creates accordingly.

[Lester George]

Gentlemen,

Jim Kennedy has accepted my offer.  One down, three to go.

Lester

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Attempting a shot that has a 1 in 100 chance of success isn't a realistic or viable option, it's fantasy at it's best."

Pat:

Leaving to you, or me, to decide what a realistic or viable option is to any golfer, no matter what you think the percentage of success may be is what is fantasy! And thank God golf is that way. If it were any other way it would probably devolve into a complete skill dependent game and a boring one at that! Somehow I think any good golf architect understands that and creates accordingly.

I never said that I wanted to prevent a golfer from making a bad choice.

If a golfer can't execute a golf shot, then realistically, that shot is not a viable option, but, noone is preventing the golfer from attempting it, that's why scorecards have room for double digit numbers

[Kevin_Reilly]

Rihc- I was privy to a Tiger story when on the 17th tee at CPC a few years back. He was 'as giddy as a little girl' and probably hit a small bucket trying to drive the green on a fly. There's another option. I did leave off the double Hail Irwin story, which I assume you recall.

I have the video of Tiger on the tee that day.  He was playing with Mark Calcavechia, and borrowed Calc's driver and took a big swipe at it.  It is fun to watch.  I only show him hitting one or two shots at it, though.

[TEPaul]

"I never said that I wanted to prevent a golfer from making a bad choice.
If a golfer can't execute a golf shot, then realistically, that shot is not a viable option, but, noone is preventing the golfer from attempting it, that's why scorecards have room for double digit numbers."

It looks like you're just beginning to get some glimmer of understanding both golf and how golfers look at golf and architecture!

Patrick:

There's a world of difference between what you might consider a bad choice and some golfer not being able to execute a viable option at all. For some golfers failing to execute a shot 99 times out of 100 may not be for them a bad choice. For starters what are they risking might be something you might want to ask yourself?

Even someone as obdurate as you must admit that executing a shot once in 100 attempts is not the same thing as not being able to execute a shot or option at all. And I truly doubt any of us need to mince with you the meaning of "viable".

Also, the one thing I don't recall seeing on this thread so far is what exactly constitutes a "handicap" golfer. Most seem to assume it's someone who hits his tee ball about 200 yards as the formulae of course and slope rating purport. We all know that's not even close to reality.

You're not only trying to maintain a ridiculous premise here but you're being ridiculously one dimensional about it as well!

And, furthermore, something you haven't seemed to answer so far---do you see at all how the concept of handicapping might effect some of the things you're trying to maintain here about what constitutes a viable option?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

"I never said that I wanted to prevent a golfer from making a bad choice.
If a golfer can't execute a golf shot, then realistically, that shot is not a viable option, but, noone is preventing the golfer from attempting it, that's why scorecards have room for double digit numbers."

It looks like you're just beginning to get some glimmer of understanding both golf and how golfers look at golf and architecture!

Patrick:

There's a world of difference between what you might consider a bad choice and some golfer not being able to execute a viable option at all. For some golfers failing to execute a shot 99 times out of 100 may not be for them a bad choice. For starters what are they risking might be something you might want to ask yourself?

You can't seriously think that a 1 in 100 chance constitutes a viable option, or that any architect intended to tempt someone with features that present those odds.

Even someone as obdurate as you must admit that executing a shot once in 100 attempts is not the same thing as not being able to execute a shot or option at all. And I truly doubt any of us need to mince with you the meaning of "viable".

For all practical purposes, it is the same thing

Also, the one thing I don't recall seeing on this thread so far is what exactly constitutes a "handicap" golfer. Most seem to assume it's someone who hits his tee ball about 200 yards as the formulae of course and slope rating purport. We all know that's not even close to reality.

I never said that, I emphasized the extremes, HIGH and LOW handicappers

You're not only trying to maintain a ridiculous premise here but you're being ridiculously one dimensional about it as well!

And, furthermore, something you haven't seemed to answer so far---do you see at all how the concept of handicapping might effect some of the things you're trying to maintain here about what constitutes a viable option?

NO, enlighten me.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()