Your most unpopular Golf opinions?

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, hollabachgt said:

 

If your goal while playing is to hit more drivers and not to shoot the best score possible, why leave the driving range?

 

Oh, I'm trying to shoot the best score possible. I'm just saying it's unnecessary to turn every course into an executive course to do it. 

 

Courses are designed to be played a certain way. That involves decision-making off the tee when course features are intended to be within driver range. Playing a course from 7400 yards isn't appropriate for me, because I don't have enough distance. Playing a course from the forward tees at 5300 is also inappropriate, because I have the distance then to take all those features out of play if I hit driver. 

 

And it's not because I want to hit driver everywhere. My last round, played from the blues at 6155 yards, I took iron or hybrid off the tee on 4 of the 14 non-par-3 holes. The holes just set up that way where driver wasn't the best risk/reward decision. 

 

You left out the rest of that statement--I'll likely score better relative to par, but not necessarily relative to course rating from closer tees (accounting for slope differential, of course).

 

That course, my course handicap from the blues is 21. If I played the whites, and saved myself 531 yards, my course handicap would be 17. 

 

So I'd be expected to shoot 4 strokes better from the whites. I shot a 97 that day. If I'd played the whites and shot a 93, would you say I'd made any progress to "shoot the best score possible"? Yeah, the number on the card is lower, but so is the level of difficulty. Relative to the course rating and handicap, the differential would be identical. 

 

 

[mshills]

Today’s modern driver should be the easiest club in the bag to hit. 

[mark174ace]

4 hours ago, mshills said:

Today’s modern driver should be the easiest club in the bag to hit. 

Nice to finally hear someone other than myself say that. So true. 

[hollabachgt]

19 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Courses are designed to be played a certain way. That involves decision-making off the tee when course features are intended to be within driver range.

 

You left out the rest of that statement--I'll likely score better relative to par, but not necessarily relative to course rating from closer tees (accounting for slope differential, of course).

 

Any architect will tell you that the intent of good architecture is to NOT limit play in a certain way and to provide as many options as possible within their designs. There is not just one type of player that plays a course, designing a course with a certain way of play will be ill suited for the majority of players. The placement of driving features is paramount in this relationship. Pete Dye would rely heavily on his wife Alice to help give him broader perspective as to how women and shorter hitters play the game, which they then incorporated into their designs.

 

Alister MacKenzie charted 4 different route to play the 14th at St. Andrews. Years later Bobby Jones wrote with glee that he discovered a 5th way to play the 14th. He found that when trying to play the hole down wind it was incredibly difficult to hold his 3rd shot on the green when playing to certain pins. Instead, what he would do was play a second shot through the green and beyond, leaving a 3rd that was now playing into the wind and a much simpler pitch to get close.

 

So tee selection should never be about playing the course as it was intended, if anything there may be a multitude of options for play from each tee box and for each type of player. you even said it yourself, "The holes just set up that way where driver wasn't the best risk/reward decision." That was an option you took, that other players with other skill sets may not have taken

 

As the course rating is an approximation for how well a scratch player would play from a particular location, why are you concerned with that number? Fundamentally I'd expect it would have nearly no bearing on your level of enjoyment while playing, nor your level of competitiveness. As you said it, the differential would be identical, which is what the handicap system is suppose to do. But that has nothing to do with your ability to shoot lower scores and continuing to improve as a player.

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by hollabachgt

[betarhoalphadelta]

51 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

 

As the course rating is an approximation for how well a scratch player would play from a particular location, why are you concerned with that number? Fundamentally I'd expect it would have nearly no bearing on your level of enjoyment while playing, nor your level of competitiveness. As you said it, the differential would be identical, which is what the handicap system is suppose to do. But that has nothing to do with your ability to shoot lower scores and continuing to improve as a player.

 

 

My enjoyment of the game of golf isn't based on that number, but the course rating and slope helps to inform me as to what I should consider to be a "good score" on a course. 

 

For example:

 

1. Practice course. 9 hole pitch and putt. 1115 total yards par 29. Rating 28.4, slope 94. On this course, if I'm playing bogey golf it's a bad day. I should shoot 5-7 over on 9 holes here. 
2. "Home" course because it's where I get the most reliable tee times. 18 holes, 3670 yards, par 60. Rating 58.2, slope 99. My target here is bogey golf. My average is above that, but over 29 rounds I shoot bogey or better about 25% of the time. 
3. Regulation course. One I play locally is 6155 yards from the blues, par 72. Rating 69.4, slope 123. I want to play bogey golf here, but I've only done it once and the tees were up across the board due to construction. On a regulation course anything under 100 is acceptable, which I've done >50% of the time at that course (4 of 7 rounds). I REALLY want to break 90 here, and breaking 90 on a course of this length and difficulty is MUCH more "real" to me than shooting bogey golf or better on an executive course. 

 

On course #2 I actually had a magical day where I shot a 69. That was amazing. But if you ask me whether I've ever broken 90, I say no. That is a course that doesn't test my complete game because it's so short that it has become "too easy" relative to the courses other people are playing. 

 

My view on it is this--with as difficult as tee times are to find here locally, on weekends (which is when I get to play), I probably play 80% of my rounds on course #2. When I am able to get a tee time at a regulation length course, or splurge for one of the spendy courses around here, why would I play a tee box that turns it into an executive course? I get more enjoyment out of challenging myself from a tee box that is appropriate to my driving distance. 

 

As stated, I'm not trying to play a course "from the tips" to assuage my ego. One of the other courses here tops out at a little over 7000 yards from the tips, rating 73.7, slope 137. That course from the tips has par 3's of 185 and 225 yards that are both forced carries over water. It has a couple of par 4s that on my best day with a perfectly struck driver and a perfectly struck 4h or 3u, I *might* reach. At that course I'm perfectly comfortable playing the whites, which are the 3rd-longest set of 6 sets of tees, a distance of 6206, rating 69.7, slope 126. That course is a hell of a challenge for me from the whites, and playing it from the blacks (the tips) would just be punishment. From the whites, the longest par 3 is now 175 over water, all of the par 4s are reachable in two and give me good opportunities for shot selection and club selection, often driver and sometimes not, and yet all of the par 5s are reasonably 3-shot holes for me, with two of them being JUST on the edge of reachable with perfect driver / perfect 3u (and maybe second shot fairway wood if I ever start carrying one). 

 

---------------------------

 

The point of all of this is that golf is a hard game. I accept and relish that it's a hard game. But tee selection can make the game either "too hard" or "too easy" relative to a person's ability to the ball a certain distance. If I could only drive 200 yards, playing a course at 6200 yards is a bear because longer par 3s might take a fairway wood to reach, longer par 4s become par 5 holes, mid-range par 4s require driver/fairway to reach, etc. If I could drive the ball 340 yards, 6200 yards is too short. Even long par 3s would probably never be more than a 9i, almost all par 4s would be driver/partial wedge, or heck, just driver, and par 5s at that distance would be driver/PW. 

 

I select the tee box based on distances I'm comfortable with, and being in the 260-270 range off the tee means that somewhere in the 6000-6500 range is my sweet spot for course length. That's going to be where I get the most enjoyment out of a round of golf, because I feel like it's the right level of challenge for me. I'd rather shoot 93 from yards than 88 from 5000 yards. If I shoot 88 from 5000 yards, I still won't believe in my head that I've "broken 90", because I did it on a course that was too easy for my distance potential. 

[Moonlightgrm]

I love Club Cars (golf carts). With no medial meniscus in my right knee, I couldn’t play 18-holes of golf without the aid of a golf cart. Most golfers claim to hate golf carts. They are a blessing for some of us. PS. I walked and carried my bag until my knee surgery at the age of 50. I am 64- years old.

[BIG STU]

10 minutes ago, Moonlightgrm said:

I love Club Cars (golf carts). With no medial meniscus in my right knee, I couldn’t play 18-holes of golf without the aid of a golf cart. Most golfers claim to hate golf carts. They are a blessing for some of us. PS. I walked and carried my bag until my knee surgery at the age of 50. I am 64- years old.

I am the same age as you and may possibly have the same surgery coming up. 2 years ago in a work related accident I broke my back and shoulder. So for me it is riding only to even be able to attempt to play. I could give 2 flips what someone else says about me riding a cart.

[BIG STU]

16 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

My enjoyment of the game of golf isn't based on that number, but the course rating and slope helps to inform me as to what I should consider to be a "good score" on a course. 

 

For example:

 

1. Practice course. 9 hole pitch and putt. 1115 total yards par 29. Rating 28.4, slope 94. On this course, if I'm playing bogey golf it's a bad day. I should shoot 5-7 over on 9 holes here. 
2. "Home" course because it's where I get the most reliable tee times. 18 holes, 3670 yards, par 60. Rating 58.2, slope 99. My target here is bogey golf. My average is above that, but over 29 rounds I shoot bogey or better about 25% of the time. 
3. Regulation course. One I play locally is 6155 yards from the blues, par 72. Rating 69.4, slope 123. I want to play bogey golf here, but I've only done it once and the tees were up across the board due to construction. On a regulation course anything under 100 is acceptable, which I've done >50% of the time at that course (4 of 7 rounds). I REALLY want to break 90 here, and breaking 90 on a course of this length and difficulty is MUCH more "real" to me than shooting bogey golf or better on an executive course. 

 

On course #2 I actually had a magical day where I shot a 69. That was amazing. But if you ask me whether I've ever broken 90, I say no. That is a course that doesn't test my complete game because it's so short that it has become "too easy" relative to the courses other people are playing. 

 

My view on it is this--with as difficult as tee times are to find here locally, on weekends (which is when I get to play), I probably play 80% of my rounds on course #2. When I am able to get a tee time at a regulation length course, or splurge for one of the spendy courses around here, why would I play a tee box that turns it into an executive course? I get more enjoyment out of challenging myself from a tee box that is appropriate to my driving distance. 

 

As stated, I'm not trying to play a course "from the tips" to assuage my ego. One of the other courses here tops out at a little over 7000 yards from the tips, rating 73.7, slope 137. That course from the tips has par 3's of 185 and 225 yards that are both forced carries over water. It has a couple of par 4s that on my best day with a perfectly struck driver and a perfectly struck 4h or 3u, I *might* reach. At that course I'm perfectly comfortable playing the whites, which are the 3rd-longest set of 6 sets of tees, a distance of 6206, rating 69.7, slope 126. That course is a hell of a challenge for me from the whites, and playing it from the blacks (the tips) would just be punishment. From the whites, the longest par 3 is now 175 over water, all of the par 4s are reachable in two and give me good opportunities for shot selection and club selection, often driver and sometimes not, and yet all of the par 5s are reasonably 3-shot holes for me, with two of them being JUST on the edge of reachable with perfect driver / perfect 3u (and maybe second shot fairway wood if I ever start carrying one). 

 

---------------------------

 

The point of all of this is that golf is a hard game. I accept and relish that it's a hard game. But tee selection can make the game either "too hard" or "too easy" relative to a person's ability to the ball a certain distance. If I could only drive 200 yards, playing a course at 6200 yards is a bear because longer par 3s might take a fairway wood to reach, longer par 4s become par 5 holes, mid-range par 4s require driver/fairway to reach, etc. If I could drive the ball 340 yards, 6200 yards is too short. Even long par 3s would probably never be more than a 9i, almost all par 4s would be driver/partial wedge, or heck, just driver, and par 5s at that distance would be driver/PW. 

 

I select the tee box based on distances I'm comfortable with, and being in the 260-270 range off the tee means that somewhere in the 6000-6500 range is my sweet spot for course length. That's going to be where I get the most enjoyment out of a round of golf, because I feel like it's the right level of challenge for me. I'd rather shoot 93 from yards than 88 from 5000 yards. If I shoot 88 from 5000 yards, I still won't believe in my head that I've "broken 90", because I did it on a course that was too easy for my distance potential. 

IMHO if you shoot 88 on that course you have broken 90 and here is why. You still have to shoot the number no matter the length of the course because there is other factors including putting etc. Kinda like someone criticizes some Pros that shot 59 on a par 70 course. You still have to shoot the number and if you look and see like some good shots or putts had you not done that you would have shot 92. So do not be too hard on yourself in fact pat yourself on the back

[SDG90]

Bill Murray should be banned from pro-ams, unless he stops his childish act he did for the last 1000 years. 

[RainShadow]

On 5/25/2022 at 2:46 PM, mshills said:

Today’s modern driver should be the easiest club in the bag to hit. 

 It is......

 

[mshills]

40 minutes ago, SDG90 said:

Bill Murray should be banned from pro-ams, unless he stops his childish act he did for the last 1000 years. 

Bill Murray has not been funny since Caddyshack….and he wasn’t all that funny in that movie either. 

[CCTxGolf]

The Barstool Sports Fore Play guys are freaking obnoxious. Terrible interviews, not funny, horrible at golf. Barstool should leave the golf space to people who actually love golf.

 

That being said they probably have one of the best jobs ever. Their content just sucks compared to the likes of NLU and others.

[BradL13]

On 5/30/2022 at 11:00 AM, CCTxGolf said:

The Barstool Sports Fore Play guys are freaking obnoxious. Terrible interviews, not funny, horrible at golf. Barstool should leave the golf space to people who actually love golf.

 

The facts Riggs likes to act like he's a solid 5 handicap makes it even more unbearable.  His ego is insane.  

[miamistomp]

On 5/26/2022 at 1:57 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

My enjoyment of the game of golf isn't based on that number, but the course rating and slope helps to inform me as to what I should consider to be a "good score" on a course. 

 

For example:

 

1. Practice course. 9 hole pitch and putt. 1115 total yards par 29. Rating 28.4, slope 94. On this course, if I'm playing bogey golf it's a bad day. I should shoot 5-7 over on 9 holes here. 
2. "Home" course because it's where I get the most reliable tee times. 18 holes, 3670 yards, par 60. Rating 58.2, slope 99. My target here is bogey golf. My average is above that, but over 29 rounds I shoot bogey or better about 25% of the time. 
3. Regulation course. One I play locally is 6155 yards from the blues, par 72. Rating 69.4, slope 123. I want to play bogey golf here, but I've only done it once and the tees were up across the board due to construction. On a regulation course anything under 100 is acceptable, which I've done >50% of the time at that course (4 of 7 rounds). I REALLY want to break 90 here, and breaking 90 on a course of this length and difficulty is MUCH more "real" to me than shooting bogey golf or better on an executive course. 

 

On course #2 I actually had a magical day where I shot a 69. That was amazing. But if you ask me whether I've ever broken 90, I say no. That is a course that doesn't test my complete game because it's so short that it has become "too easy" relative to the courses other people are playing. 

 

My view on it is this--with as difficult as tee times are to find here locally, on weekends (which is when I get to play), I probably play 80% of my rounds on course #2. When I am able to get a tee time at a regulation length course, or splurge for one of the spendy courses around here, why would I play a tee box that turns it into an executive course? I get more enjoyment out of challenging myself from a tee box that is appropriate to my driving distance. 

 

As stated, I'm not trying to play a course "from the tips" to assuage my ego. One of the other courses here tops out at a little over 7000 yards from the tips, rating 73.7, slope 137. That course from the tips has par 3's of 185 and 225 yards that are both forced carries over water. It has a couple of par 4s that on my best day with a perfectly struck driver and a perfectly struck 4h or 3u, I *might* reach. At that course I'm perfectly comfortable playing the whites, which are the 3rd-longest set of 6 sets of tees, a distance of 6206, rating 69.7, slope 126. That course is a hell of a challenge for me from the whites, and playing it from the blacks (the tips) would just be punishment. From the whites, the longest par 3 is now 175 over water, all of the par 4s are reachable in two and give me good opportunities for shot selection and club selection, often driver and sometimes not, and yet all of the par 5s are reasonably 3-shot holes for me, with two of them being JUST on the edge of reachable with perfect driver / perfect 3u (and maybe second shot fairway wood if I ever start carrying one). 

 

---------------------------

 

The point of all of this is that golf is a hard game. I accept and relish that it's a hard game. But tee selection can make the game either "too hard" or "too easy" relative to a person's ability to the ball a certain distance. If I could only drive 200 yards, playing a course at 6200 yards is a bear because longer par 3s might take a fairway wood to reach, longer par 4s become par 5 holes, mid-range par 4s require driver/fairway to reach, etc. If I could drive the ball 340 yards, 6200 yards is too short. Even long par 3s would probably never be more than a 9i, almost all par 4s would be driver/partial wedge, or heck, just driver, and par 5s at that distance would be driver/PW. 

 

I select the tee box based on distances I'm comfortable with, and being in the 260-270 range off the tee means that somewhere in the 6000-6500 range is my sweet spot for course length. That's going to be where I get the most enjoyment out of a round of golf, because I feel like it's the right level of challenge for me. I'd rather shoot 93 from yards than 88 from 5000 yards. If I shoot 88 from 5000 yards, I still won't believe in my head that I've "broken 90", because I did it on a course that was too easy for my distance potential. 

 Do you practice any part of your game other than tee shots ?

  I often play with a couple of guy that are  club pros and mini tour guys

  Would say they carry about 260 off the tee and in south Florida you don't get much roll

   One of them has played the Honda a couple of times through qualifying 

 

You should easily be  shooting 80 if  you are driving 260-270

[Wooley12]

In my opinion, the proper way to pace ones play on a golf course is play so as to not hinder the pace of play of the group behind you. This seems to run contrary to the opinion of others (Including several course marshals) who suggest keeping up with the group ahead of you is proper golf etiquette.  

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

7 minutes ago, miamistomp said:

 Do you practice any part of your game other than tee shots ?

  I often play with a couple of guy that are  club pros and mini tour guys

  Would say they carry about 260 off the tee and in south Florida you don't get much roll

   One of them has played the Honda a couple of times through qualifying 

 

You should easily be  shooting 80 if  you are driving 260-270

 

My time at the range is 90% based on iron shots and wedges, with the other 10% being driver. I rarely practice putting or chipping/pitching, which is a mistake. I need to practice those a LOT more than I do. 

 

SS is about 100 with driver, so I carry maybe 245-250 and get rollout to 265-270. 

 

My primary issues are iron accuracy (I'm only hitting 4-5 GIR on average), putting (average 37.1 putts over my last 20 rounds), and the completely missed shots (the horrific contact shots, and chunks in short game situations). 

 

[miamistomp]

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

My time at the range is 90% based on iron shots and wedges, with the other 10% being driver. I rarely practice putting or chipping/pitching, which is a mistake. I need to practice those a LOT more than I do. 

 

SS is about 100 with driver, so I carry maybe 245-250 and get rollout to 265-270. 

 

My primary issues are iron accuracy (I'm only hitting 4-5 GIR on average), putting (average 37.1 putts over my last 20 rounds), and the completely missed shots (the horrific contact shots, and chunks in short game situations). 

 

 Yep as my coach used to say- if you are gonna miss greens you better learn to chip and pitch !

[betarhoalphadelta]

14 hours ago, Wooley12 said:

 

In my opinion, the proper way to pace ones play on a golf course is play so as to not hinder the pace of play of the group behind you. This seems to run contrary to the opinion of others (Including several course marshals) who suggest keeping up with the group ahead of you is proper golf etiquette.  

 

 

I think you're right, but it's a small distinction in my opinion, especially when playing on busy public courses. Usually any on-course gap between groups indicates a group that is playing too slowly, not a group that is playing quickly getting ahead of them. 

 

On a non-busy course, obviously there might be some jackrabbit groups (or twosomes) that if you're a normal-pace foursome you simply aren't going to keep up. So the key is then to make sure that you're not hindering the group behind. 

 

But on a busy course, jackrabbit groups have nowhere to go. And it's often tough to determine whether you're hindering the group behind you unless they're literally RIGHT on your heels the whole time. So for those instances, the best goal is to make sure you're keeping up with the group ahead. If you're doing that, any hindering of the group behind you is not your fault. 

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

8 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I think you're right, but it's a small distinction in my opinion, especially when playing on busy public courses. Usually any on-course gap between groups indicates a group that is playing too slowly, not a group that is playing quickly getting ahead of them. 

 

On a non-busy course, obviously there might be some jackrabbit groups (or twosomes) that if you're a normal-pace foursome you simply aren't going to keep up. So the key is then to make sure that you're not hindering the group behind. 

 

But on a busy course, jackrabbit groups have nowhere to go. And it's often tough to determine whether you're hindering the group behind you unless they're literally RIGHT on your heels the whole time. So for those instances, the best goal is to make sure you're keeping up with the group ahead. If you're doing that, any hindering of the group behind you is not your fault. 

The course I played this weekend flat-out said "The appropriate pace of play is to keep up with the group in front of you," printed on the scorecards and on the golf cart steering wheels.

[mark m]

The one I hold which is not popular is the Ryder Cup format. I would change it to the old Presidents Cup format. 4 days of competition instead of 3. Six team matches on day 1, and six on day 2 (one day Fourball and the other Foursomes), and Saturday would be 10 or 12 matches (morning and afternoon sessions). And 12 singles matches on Sunday. I am not set on Saturday. Whatever works best.

 

My beef is the “the depth just isn’t there” or “if it ain’t broke why fix it?” mentality. Four days of competition would be great. And the depth is there. And I don’t want to see team members sitting. You made the team, go play. Everyone should be guaranteed at least 4 matches. I would even have one of the assistant captains be designated as a stand-in in case of illness or injury. More golf and more value for the spectators. 
 

The genesis of this was watching Captains choosing popular players who weren’t playing well for the team matches, and tanking the US team. 

[Wooley12]

5 hours ago, HappyGilmoresBoots said:

The course I played this weekend flat-out said "The appropriate pace of play is to keep up with the group in front of you," printed on the scorecards and on the golf cart steering wheels.

Yeah. That's what makes my opinion unpopular. 

[hollabachgt]

On 5/31/2022 at 7:14 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

My primary issues are iron accuracy (I'm only hitting 4-5 GIR on average), putting (average 37.1 putts over my last 20 rounds), and the completely missed shots (the horrific contact shots, and chunks in short game situations). 

 

 

If you miss 13-14 greens per round and still average 37 putts per round you need to spend virtually all of your practice time on the putting green!

 

After a missed green it would be anticipated that your first putt proximity would be, on average, closer to the hole than a GIR. Even with a below average short game, your proximity from 30 yards in the rough is still expected to be closer than 150 yards in the fairway. If you're still averaging that many putts from a closer than average first putt proximity you're giving away at least 5-7 strokes per round.

 

 

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

28 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

 

If you miss 13-14 greens per round and still average 37 putts per round you need to spend virtually all of your practice time on the putting green!

 

After a missed green it would be anticipated that your first putt proximity would be, on average, closer to the hole than a GIR. Even with a below average short game, your proximity from 30 yards in the rough is still expected to be closer than 150 yards in the fairway. If you're still averaging that many putts from a closer than average first putt proximity you're giving away at least 5-7 strokes per round.

 

 

Absolutely true. It's one of the changes I'm making. I don't practice putting because I get bored quickly. At the range I may also get bored, but I have a defined "end time", i.e. when I've exhausted a bucket of balls. (If nothing's working, I do sometimes leave before finishing them.)

 

So I've looked at a couple of "games" I can play on the putting green to at least keep it interesting. One of them helps me both create a defined process and number of "rounds" of the game I want to hit before I stop practicing. The defined number of "rounds" will ensure I keep going until I've hit the end time rather than getting bored too early. The design of the game should help me both on lag putting and short-midrange putts because the scoring of the game requires holing out whether you lag to 3 inches or 3 1/2 feet, with severe 3-putt punishment. 

 

Either way, my point initially was that I believe tee box selection should be based on distance potential, not handicap. I neither play "from the tips" which at many courses would be too long for me, nor "from the forward tees" which at many courses would be turning courses into executive courses. I choose the tees that leave me reachable distances to GIR on par 4s and don't put all the par 3s on the very top (or beyond) of my distance range with long irons. My goal is to make the game "appropriately hard" for myself. 

 

[hollabachgt]

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Either way, my point initially was that I believe tee box selection should be based on distance potential, not handicap. I neither play "from the tips" which at many courses would be too long for me, nor "from the forward tees" which at many courses would be turning courses into executive courses. I choose the tees that leave me reachable distances to GIR on par 4s and don't put all the par 3s on the very top (or beyond) of my distance range with long irons. My goal is to make the game "appropriately hard" for myself. 

 

 

Trying not to be too harsh with this comment, but until you improve on and around the green, the length of a set of tees has virtually zero impact on your game. Thus any ego or bias you may have on a set of tees should be thrown out the window before you get to the first tee.

 

In actuality, playing more "executive length" courses may be the best thing you can do for your game. Playing a shorter course will allow you to focus more on your approach shots, putting, and chipping; while also limiting your chance for blow up holes. All factors you've mentioned contribute to your bad play.

 

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

My goal is to make the game "appropriately hard" for myself. 

 

 

This comment really grinds my gears.

 

Imagine a perfectly flat golf hole that is 400 yards long with a 60-yard wide fairway and a green that is a perfect circle 40 yards in diameter. The hole is dead straight, no bunker, no water, no trees.

This would be about as close to the simplest and easiest par 4 you could build. For the majority of players who play the game, this would be a hole that is too challenging for them to consistently make a 4 on. the difficulty to them as players comes from the length and their inability to hit the ball where they desire it to go. hazards are not needed to test the average player’s abilities.

 

For all but a select highly skilled few, the game is inherently appropriately hard, or harder, even before you factor in the course it is played on. Based on the measurement of the game, If a player was to play from the front most tees and they failed to score par or better for the round, the course from those tees was more than appropriately hard for them that day.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by hollabachgt
clarification

[betarhoalphadelta]

5 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

 

Trying not to be too harsh with this comment, but until you improve on and around the green, the length of a set of tees has virtually zero impact on your game. Thus any ego or bias you may have on a set of tees should be thrown out the window before you get to the first tee.

 

In actuality, playing more "executive length" courses may be the best thing you can do for your game. Playing a shorter course will allow you to focus more on your approach shots, putting, and chipping; while also limiting your chance for blow up holes. All factors you've mentioned contribute to your bad play.

 

The best thing I could do for my game would be to spend more time practicing and less time playing. However, I have limited time, and I enjoy playing. 

 

I play a lot of executive length courses because it's hard to get weekend tee times anywhere but around here unless I want to spend $150+ for a round. 

 

Playing full-length golf courses allow me to spend plenty of time focusing on approach / putting / around the green. It also allows me 10-14 opportunities to hit driver. IMHO it's more of a "full experience" than playing just executive length courses. 

 

Quote

 

This comment really grinds my gears.

 

Imagine a perfectly flat golf hole that is 400 yards long with a 60-yard wide fairway and a green that is a perfect circle 40 yards in diameter. The hole is dead straight, no bunker, no water, no trees.

This would be about as close to the simplest and easiest par 4 you could build. For the majority of players who play the game, this would be a hole that is too challenging for them to consistently make a 4 on. the difficulty to them as players comes from the length and their inability to hit the ball where they desire it to go. hazards are not needed to test the average player’s abilities.

 

For all but a select highly skilled few, the game is inherently appropriately hard even before you factor in the course it is played on. Based on the measurement of the game, If a player was to play from the front most tees and they failed to score par or better for the round, the course from those tees was more than appropriately hard for them that day.

 

 

Where I think we're on different pages here is that you're talking about score, and I'm talking about enjoyment. 

 

If every hole was wide open without trouble, it would make the game easier. I would score better. I still wouldn't make par on every hole, or even a majority of holes, based on skill level, so you can argue the game is already hard enough. That's certainly true. But it would be BORING. 

 

My enjoyment of the game is why I play. Sometimes that means I hit the ball into a hazard and have to extricate myself (sometimes badly). Sometimes that means I have blow up holes because I've compounded hazards, mistakes, etc all at once. I certainly don't like blow up holes. 

 

But my enjoyment is based not ONLY on scoring, it's based on how I score. The #1 handicap hole at my normal executive length course is a 317 yard par 4. Should be easy, right? There is a creek about 220 yards off the tee crossing the fairway, and that creek is at the bottom of a valley. So if you can carry 225 or more, you can fly the creek and it's an easy hole where you have a short uphill pitch to the green. If not, you have to lay up, and that lay-up can't be too close to the creek because a ball hit >160 into the left side of the fairway can run ALL the way down into the creek. 

 

So I can hit driver and try to make the hole easy by flying the creek, or I can basically lay up in the fairway with PW and be left with maybe 7i to the green. It's a great risk-reward choice. 

 

These are the kinds of things I find interesting and enjoyable about golf. Yeah, maybe I only hit a great drive and end up in the fairway across the creek on that hole about 30% of the time. And I hit a low draw that ends up across the creek (it's shorter left) underneath the first tee another 30% of the time. And I mishit driver 30% of the time and end up doing no worse than if I'd hit PW. And I either end up in the creek or lose the ball OB right 10% of the time. 

 

But it's a heck of a lot more interesting than a 317 yard flat par 4 with no trouble, where I can hit 4h/SW off the tee into the green. That course has 6 par 4s, and hole #9 is the only time I take driver out of the bag. Every other par 4 I tee off with my 3u or 4h because there's no reward to driver. Each one brings trouble into play due to dispersion, but without advantage except for two where a PERFECT shot might drive the green. 

[hollabachgt]

 

55 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Where I think we're on different pages here is that you're talking about score, and I'm talking about enjoyment.

 

I didn't bring up score. You did, multiple times in fact. Shoot, most of your posts on the 25th and 26th were centered around how scoring, course rating/slope, and tee selection impacted your enjoyment:

 

On 5/26/2022 at 1:57 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

My enjoyment of the game of golf isn't based on that number(course rating), but the course rating and slope helps to inform me as to what I should consider to be a "good score" on a course.

 

You're enjoyment of the game is correlated to what you've determined to be a "good score"

 

Where we are on different pages is that you've equated course length to difficulty, difficulty to challenge, challenge to score, and score to enjoyment.

 

The problem is challenge does lead to enjoyment through score, often quite the opposite. Many courses can easily become over challenging to most golfers, leading to a rather un-enjoyable round of golf. You don't want challenge, you want contention because contention generates interest. Interest is required to make a golf hole feel compelling and enjoyable to play, but that interest must come from some level of contention or conflict between what the player wants to do and what the hole permits them to do. Their success and failure of challenging a holes is the origin of enjoyment.

 

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

If every hole was wide open without trouble, it would make the game easier. I would score better. I still wouldn't make par on every hole, or even a majority of holes, based on skill level, so you can argue the game is already hard enough. That's certainly true. But it would be BORING.

 

You described my very basic hole as boring, but you've also described playing a course a certain way, as it was designed. Both could easily be seen as boring for the exact same reason. One design does not reward or punish any option any more than any other, the other only rewards one options and punishes the rest. In both cases options of play are taken off the table and thus the interest around them. Remove contention and you remove enjoyment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, hollabachgt said:

 

Where we are on different pages is that you've equated course length to difficulty, difficulty to challenge, challenge to score, and score to enjoyment.

 

The problem is challenge does lead to enjoyment through score, often quite the opposite. Many courses can easily become over challenging to most golfers, leading to a rather un-enjoyable round of golf. You don't want challenge, you want contention because contention generates interest. Interest is required to make a golf hole feel compelling and enjoyable to play, but that interest must come from some level of contention or conflict between what the player wants to do and what the hole permits them to do. Their success and failure of challenging a holes is the origin of enjoyment.

 

 

Alright, we've beaten this horse to death long enough. I'll make this my last post on the matter. 

 

All of this is subjective, though. Everyone has a certain idea of how golf should be to maximize enjoyment of a round. I don't believe that moving forward will maximize my enjoyment of a round relative to tees where I can reach the longest par 4s in 2 after a good drive without resorting to fairway wood for my approach shot, and can reach the green of the longest par 3 without resorting to the same. For me that's not the tips. That's somewhere in the 6000-6500 yard range for a typical course. 

 

Maybe other people will enjoy their round more playing from 5300. I don't know. I'm not them. This is the "unpopular" golf opinions thread, and a lot of people on WRX tell high-caps to move up because they're high-caps, regardless of their distance potential. Unpopular though it may be, my opinion is that my enjoyment is maximized playing right where I am.

 

[Anser3]

If you read the putter forum, it's apparently an unpopular opinion to even suggest that Scotty Cameron copied designs of Karsten Solheim and others. 

 

In all seriousness, one unpopular opinion is that high handcappers  do not need to always play from forward tees.  If it's not disrupting anybody else, people should play from whatever tees they want.  They paid money to play and should enjoy the game as they see fit...again as long as it doesn't severely hinder somebody else's playing experience  (and no, impatience is not considered a ruined experience).  

 

I also have the opinion that music on the course should be loud enough for those in the cart to hear it...no louder.   Also, animals do not belong on the course except those that exist naturally in that environment (birds and the occasional squirrel or chipmunk).  Basically, no pets.

[dfeldss]

On 5/31/2022 at 2:57 PM, BradL13 said:

 

The facts Riggs likes to act like he's a solid 5 handicap makes it even more unbearable.  His ego is insane.  

 

He might have my least favorite swing on the planet. 

[aenemated]

3 hours ago, dfeldss said:

 

He might have my least favorite swing on the planet. 

 

I generally avoid their nonsense but I did watch the round at Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV prior to playing it Wednesday to get an idea of what to expect. (Spoiler alert - no camera totally captures what an insane course that is ... seriously. I do not recommend it if you're uncomfortable with heights.)

 

The fact that they tried to say dude shot 77 there? Not a chance. None. Zero.