[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't STRATEGY really created by the golfers desire to achieve the lowest score ?

Absent the objective to get the ball from the tee, into the hole in the fewest strokes possible, strategy is meaningless, nonexistent.

[Brian_Gracely]

If the objective of the round is the lowest score, then you're right that it probably has an influence on your strategy.  

But there are plenty of times when you play a round and score is not the objective of the round.  Maybe the objective is not to lose any balls that day.  Maybe the objective is to watch as many shots as possible fly against the backdrop of mountains or an interesting sunset.  Maybe the objective is to see how many different shots you can hit with a 5-iron.

You're probably going to say that that isn't golf but rather a modifiied form of practice.  But in reality, isn't any non-tournament round just a form of practice?  

[THuckaby2]

BG:

Methinks this is gonna be a rare occasion where you find yourself in agreement with Mr. Mucci.  

I don't think he'd deny that lots of golf gets played outside the confines of trying to get the ball into the hole in the fewest number of strokes.  Maybe not often BY HIM, but I think he'd see it does occur - just as you describe.

I think his question is that in that form of the game, calling it whatever one wants, does strategy even exist?

And to me it's obvious that it doesn't.  The choices are there, but if the golfer ignores them, they function like the tree falling in the woods.

Now what the point of asking this is, I don't know... but I'm sure Patrick will tell us!

TH

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You really don't read anything do you? And if you do apparently you can't remotely comprehend it!

Have you not noticed this hale fellow Shivas from the midwestern city of Chicago and what strategy means to him? He's only been saying it to you for around two years now! There are millions of golfers like him out there too!

To Shivas strategy is all about temptation, not scoring! And just as Oscar Wilde said; "I can resist anything except temptation!"

Temptation is Shivas's strategy and the more outrageous the temptation the better. Score isn't worth a damn---the instant and completely exhilerating conquering of some outrageously risky temptation is what it's all about! It's not about how many, it's only about how!

There're millions like Shivas out there loving it all but of course you'll continue to deny that no matter what anyone says to the contrary!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Are you aware of what's now called "The Big World theory"? If not it's based on the phrase;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

Henceforth you should keep reminding yourself of that every single day lest you continue to think of yourself as golf's Christopher Columbus leading the flatheads on to the new round world!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Well said, and I hadn't looked at it that way at all.

What I meant by ignoring strategy was ignoring THE PRUDENT CHOICE, the one that gets the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes.  And hell yes, that has little to do with how shivas plays, and hell how I play at least some times, outside of competition.  On the other side we also have guys like David M. who tend to make prudent, thoughtful plays - but they too aren't in this solely for score - a large part of the thrill for them is figuring out just what the best play is, and whether it works or not for the lowest score is more theoretical than practical, at least some of the time!

So on each side we have guys who are seeing strategy and making choices... and it has little or nothing to do with score.

So OK, Mucci is wrong (if we look at it this way) and I feel much better about the earth and my place in it now.  Agreeing with him was way out of my comfort zone.  

TH

[JSlonis]

So on each side we have guys who are seeing strategy and making choices... and it has little or nothing to do with score.

TH

That may be so...but...if it has little or nothing to do with score, then it's not really GOLF.  Call it what you may, practice, a walk in the park, a day away from your wives, but NOT GOLF.  To use a sports analogy, would anyone play a game of basketball just to dribble around the court, and look at the arena?

Maybe it is my competitive nature but unlike Brian G, I really don't play "plenty of rounds to see the ball fly against a mountain or to see a sunset".  If that is part of a round great, but if I really wanted to see those things, I'd go hiking or go to the beach.  There are non-tournament rounds that aren't practice. We rarely play a round at our club where there isn't some incentive/betting involved to shoot the lowest score.  I'll go out late in the summer after work for nine holes, and to me that is practice.

From my point of view, Pat is correct, strategy is created by the golfer to score as low as possible and options are just a byproduct of a persons ability to acheive that score.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You really don't read anything do you? And if you do apparently you can't remotely comprehend it!

Have you not noticed this hale fellow Shivas from the midwestern city of Chicago and what strategy means to him? He's only been saying it to you for around two years now! There are millions of golfers like him out there too!

To Shivas strategy is all about temptation, not scoring! And just as Oscar Wilde said; "I can resist anything except temptation!"

Temptation is Shivas's strategy and the more outrageous the temptation the better. Score isn't worth a damn---the instant and completely exhilerating conquering of some outrageously risky temptation is what it's all about! It's not about how many, it's only about how!

There're millions like Shivas out there loving it all but of course you'll continue to deny that no matter what anyone says to the contrary!

Actions speak louder then words.
And, talk is cheap.
So, you think that when he's playing with his friends for a few bucks, he's in it for the temptation ?  If so, I want a piece of his friends action.

I've played with Shivas at GCGC, and trust me, he wasn't out there for a walk in the country, or to see the Temptations, they were performing in Brooklyn.  He was trying to shoot the lowest score he could that day.

You, of all people, should reread the USGA rule book, especially RULE 1-1.  The entire game is founded on competition, getting the ball into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, or fewer strokes then your opponent.

If you're not trying to get the ball from the teeing ground into the hole in the fewest strokes possible, then you're not playing golf.

Brian Gracely,

I like nothing more then to go out in the late afternoon and hit a variety of shots, experiment on the golf course, but I'm not playing golf, I'm practicing and testing my ability to hit certain shots on the golf course where there are consequences for failure, which don't exist on the practice tee.

If I'm trying to hit a dozen cut 5-irons to a green, then I'm ignoring the strategy and refining my ability to execute that particular shot on the golf course.

If I don't care about my score, then strategy has no relevance.

The desire and attempt to shoot a low score is what creates and accentuates strategy.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I'm sure Shivas did want to achieve a score at GCGC, but not to the extent of "grinding out" such as he would have done in a truly competitive situation... and also not as little as he would in other situations where he is bombing away trying to reach every par 5 in two, drive par 4's just for the hell of it, bounce 5irons along for 150 yards on the ground, etc.  The point is that the strategic choices don't go away just because he chooses the worst possible one for his score (no matter what he did at GCGC - that was just one round)... If anything TEP is correct - some times he's actively TRYING to find that, and see if he can pull off the shot anyway.  He knows in his mind that it's the least likely to give him a good score, and that is absolutely why he does it - just to see what happens.  If a good score occurs, great.  If it doesn't, he could care less.

I don't see how one makes the leap here from choosing the imprudent choice to such choice not existing.  I kinda did feel this way myself for a long time... but good lord TEP's post gave me a eureka moment here today.  Learning remains a good thing.

Yep, for him at those times it is about how, not how many... and part of finding the coolest how is understanding the choices, and then taking the riskiest one!

TH

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

You are correct. Obviously. I am surprised that you posted this, and more surprised that people are arguing. Strategy involves a goal. The goal of dubbing around on the course does not involve strategy.

I am on the verge of starting a "2 + 2 = 4" thread to see the true degree of egg-headed nit picking on this board.

[THuckaby2]

Michael:

2+2=4. Or it sure as hell should.  

But you'd deny that in some form of the game - that ascribed to my poor ole friend shivas here, who surely does not play this way ALL the time, only sometimes - that strategic choices exist outside of focus on score?

I sure see it, and to me it's not nitpicking, it's a basic fundamental thing.  Taking the high-risk choice at the expense of score does not mean the choice ceases to exist...

Ok, I'm likely with you in that this whole discussion seems WAY out on the meaningless theoretical, but I deny all connection to nitpicking!

 

[Dan Kelly]

I am on the verge of starting a "2 + 2 = 4" thread to see the true degree of egg-headed nit picking on this board.

Mr. Moore --

If you want to inspire the sort of "nit picking" which Mr. Mucci regularly inspires, I'd suggest you rephrase your thread name.

Here's how Mr. Mucci would phrase it: "Does 2 + 2 = 4?"

[ForkaB]

Oooooh!   I could nitpick the language of Pat's topic to death, but I won't as I agree with its general sense, with the exception that it should be qualified to read  "....achieve the lowest score necessary."

That being said, in a lot of my rounds, particulary non-competitive ones, I DO try out a lot of seemingly silly strategies which are probably not at all optimal.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Do you mean to tell me that I should've been trying to make  3s and 4s when I had the opportunity instead of 5s or more? I always thought everything about America was supposed to be about more, not less. Damnit Man, now you tell me! I probably could've been somebody!

[SPDB]

Pat -
This post makes me sad. By it, I see now that you've totally abandoned your advocacy of the return of the stymie.

[Dan Kelly]

Prof. Goodale writes: "Does 2 + 2 really 'equal' '4?'  After 3 years on this site, I'm not so sure.........."

How very keen of you to emphasize the importance of "equal" -- though your equivalent ("equivalent"?) emphasis on "4" puzzles me.

Surely, in a score-centric (and possibly strategy-rich) view of the game (or, if you prefer, sport), 1+3 = 2+2 = 3+1 = 4.

BUT! I invite you to consider whether, on an actual hole of "par" 4, in any sense of the game (or, if you prefer, sport) as it is played, by millions, non-score-centrically, 1+3 = 2+2 = 3+1.

I submit that 1+3 (think Shivas) is quite different from 2+2 (think Mr. GIR, Tom I), which in turn is quite different from 3+1 (think me -- if you can manage it!).

And now, in the words of Woody Allen: "I have to go now, Duane. I'm due back on Planet Earth."

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Pat -
This post makes me sad. By it, I see now that you've totally abandoned your advocacy of the return of the stymie.

NEVER !

I did add the caveate, "lower then your opponent" which allows one to include the "STYMIE" while at the same time accomplishing your goal of scoring less then him.  

Michael Moore,

It is hard to imagine that some want to refute the premise, and have done so, probably without thinking about the key word you used, "goal".

TEPaul in an effort to disagree with me gets lost within his own convoluted logic.  What I am surprised at is Tom Huckaby's agreement and subsequent reversal, choosing in the ultimate to side with TEPaul, which as everyone knows is disastrous.  Guys have been thrown out of clubs for such decisions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I'm sure Shivas did want to achieve a score at GCGC, but not to the extent of "grinding out" such as he would have done in a truly competitive situation.

How do you know that ?

and also not as little as he would in other situations where he is bombing away trying to reach every par 5 in two, drive par 4's just for the hell of it, bounce 5irons along for 150 yards on the ground, etc.

How do you know that ?
 
The point is that the strategic choices don't go away just because he chooses the worst possible one for his score (no matter what he did at GCGC - that was just one round)

Of course they do, if a player abandons the goal, he abandons the strategy involved in achieving his goal

... If anything TEP is correct

That is IMPOSSIBLE

- some times he's actively TRYING to find that, and see if he can pull off the shot anyway.  He knows in his mind that it's the least likely to give him a good score, and that is absolutely why he does it - just to see what happens.

Then he has abandoned his goal, and the strategy employed to achieve that goal  

If a good score occurs, great.  If it doesn't, he could care less.

Then he's not playing golf, but practicing and experimenting on the golf course

I don't see how one makes the leap here from choosing the imprudent choice to such choice not existing.
 I kinda did feel this way myself for a long time... but good lord TEP's post gave me a eureka moment here today.  Learning remains a good thing.

Then you need to read this again  
It's not the choice of shots he makes, imprudent though they may be, it's the abandonment of the goal, and subsequent substitution of another goal, executing a unique shot where the goal isn't the lowest possible score

Yep, for him at those times it is about how, not how many... and part of finding the coolest how is understanding the choices, and then taking the riskiest one!

Then he's abandoned the goal, and substituted another

[A_Clay_Man]

PAt- Is of course wrong again. Strategy also involves not making a worse score.  

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I read youre rebuttals to me and all I can say is... you're wrong.

But let's try this, one by one:

1. Shivas at GCGC - I know enough of the man to guess how his round went there.  He can step in and confirm for himself, but I bet I am right.  In any case it's just an example.  So screw it, change it to one of the rounds I played with him, at Pasatiempo.  Everything I say applies there perfectly - and the general is the point anwyay, not the specific.

2. I know how he plays because I have seen it, and we have discussed it many times.  I also tend to play this way myself quite often.

3. Because the goal is changed does not at all mean the strategy goes away...  What you say is absolutely illogical.  Taking one choice over another means the choices cease to exist?  Nope.  Wrong.

4. You have one definition of "playing golf", certainly your opinion.  Mine is quite different.  What shivas does absolutely IS playing golf.  You can call it whatever you want though, to help your incredibly weak argument here!

The rest matters not.  Just refer to my #3 here, it says all that need be said.  Changing the goal absolutely does NOT make the choices cease to exist.  A very valid GOAL on a golf course is to "have fun".  The fact you can't see this is quite disapponting to me... as I have a feeling that when actually playing the game instead of discussing it here, you achieve this goal quite well.  In any case, that goal is very valid, and can be achieved many ways, many of which have nothing to do with one's score.  And in these ways, strategic choices absolutely do exist, as I've described already using my lawyer friends as examples of how it works on both sides, neither concerned a lick with score.  You can choose to try and "win" an argument by calling what they do some other game, but if that's all you have to combat me with here, then that is the greatest disappointment of all.  I expect so much more from you!

So when do I get thrown out of the club?

 

[THuckaby2]

To Jamie S.:

I call it golf, you don't.  Makes for an easy discussion here when we just have to agree to disagree on the terms!

And you know what?  I've played a lot of what you call golf.  I love it.  Not to the depth or nearly the skill level as you, but enough.

But I also like what you've defined here as something else...

And the bottom line is that strategic choices EXIST in either form.  Just because one chooses the imprudent way does not mean the choices cease to exist.  This really is pretty simple, isn't it?

[Sven Bergstrøm]

Dämn vell säid Tøm Huckäby! Yøur øne hell gølfy tu! Vere good friendes even thøugh ve nevr met! Yøur doo øne hell fine yøb soo keep it up!

[THuckaby2]

One more thing on this:

If one defines "golf" SOLELY as playing the game with the obejctive of achieving the lowest score possible, then it would stand to reason that strategic choices exist only in this form of the game - because there is no other form of the game!  

So yes Patrick, if this is all you have, then you are correct.  

But that's like saying football cannot exist without tackling.  Of course that's true if by "football" you mean the form played in the NFL - but a lot of kids playing the flag version would sure argue that their version is as real as that played by the millionaires.

What I play when I don't keep score, and fire shots all over the place, is as "golf" to me as what Jamie does in the Pennsyvlania state amateur.  And strategic choices sure as heck do exist in what I do when I play this way - I just choose to take the riskiest version, because my goal is fun, not score.

Ok, whew, that's enough.  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick:

What about match play?  My goal in match play is to beat or tie my opponent, depending on the circumstances.  Score be damned, I will lay up from 3 feet, if that's what it takes.

On the other side we also have guys like David M. who tend to make prudent, thoughtful plays - but they too aren't in this solely for score - a large part of the thrill for them is figuring out just what the best play is, and whether it works or not for the lowest score is more theoretical than practical, at least some of the time!

Huh?  You obviously havent played with me much if you think I "tend to make prudent, thoughtful plays."  Or if you think I am not concerned with winning a match, or shooting a low score.   (I very rarely play for score outside the overriding context of a match.)   I like to try figure out different routes, in theory, but will rarely  take one if I dont think it will help me accomplish me score or win.  

It is a mistake to confuse my words on this board with my play on the course, as it probably is with many of us.  

[A_Clay_Man]

As someone who has caddied and been caddied for, I have both given and received strategic advice which changed the mindset of the golfer. Not only strategy but often listing all the OPTIONS available to the player. I won't bore you with details but they are real and some of them involve some of the best in the world.

I have to say this is another condescending premise apparently by and from the mind of someone who finds this game easy, or is very good at it, or, it all comes naturally to  exactly like Hubbel, in "The way we were". yuck!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()