Are Today's Golf Courses Unfair to the Average Golfer?

Pepperturbo · January 3, 2013

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1357184531' post='6157491']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357150819' post='6154003']
It boils down to those of us that chase challenge and strive to improve IN LIFE, while accepting our weaknesses; verses those that think they somehow deserve courses to be built to accommodate their lack of desire and weaknesses; brings to mind who loves capitalism vs. socialism.
[/quote]

:cheesy: Honestly, Pepper...you cannot be a serious. Some of the stuff you post is like a caricature of a human being. These points aren't even responsive to the counter arguments being made. Nobody is here whining because courses are hard. Most of the people that are making the argument that the unplayability of the modern golf course is hurting the game are good players. How do you square that with this nonsense?
[/quote]

Why is it, you can't talk without insulting those you disagree with? Apparently you were never taught manners... or if you haven't anything nice to say -- don't say anything at all! You do not define what I, or others value and think, so get down off your internet empowered horse. When people argue over issues that supposedly don't affect them, they do what you're doing... arguing just to argue, and insult over differences of opinion.

Pepperturbo · January 3, 2013

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1357216337' post='6158939']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357151475' post='6154083']
But on every course effective long, mid and short irons are prerequisites for scoring.
[/quote]

But that was exatly what I am saying. A golfer who does not play as well as you will have trouble with the shots to massively defended greens, no matter which tees he uses. Those difficult shots to the greens will still be the problem. So SurfDuffer's argument that peole should play "proper" tees and their problems would solve themselves is not valid in my view, when a course offers no margin of error around the greens.
[/quote]

The basic goal of golf is to pick any one of "13" golf clubs and within reason, hit the ball in the air that clubs distance. From there, if said golfer chooses a course that offers minimal margin for error to a 3000+sqft green from, say, 150yds, and said golfer can't carry the distance, he's either chosen the wrong club, the wrong course, and or the wrong tees. Which ever it is, he needs practice and or should be playing executive courses till he can properly choose a course that fits his skill, and carry the ball basic distances.

If someone can't throw a basketball from the 3pt line, 24', and hit the backboard, he's not able to play basketball without having the 3pt line, maybe the free throw line moved forward to accommodate his inability. I am 5'10, and NOT able to dunk. Using your line of thinking, the standard height of the basket should be lowered to accommodate my height so I can dunk like the taller guys.

PS - regarding Nicklaus' supposed comment about stopping a ball on a car hood... someone care to show me any green that remotely close to the size of a car hood. Small greens are 2500+sq ft... the majority of hoods on tour are 4-8k sq foot. The person that can't hit a 6k sq ft green from 150yds shouldn't be playing that course.

cdnrockies · January 3, 2013

20 pages and all that is clear is that there are a couple "avid" golfers that I pray I never get paired with.

Apparently someone thinks they're the only "avid" golfer, that is driven, has enjoyed business success, played at private clubs, sat on the board and therefore gets to look down his nose like a pompous a**. Kudos.

Thread should be closed as this discussion is only going in circles now.

profsmitty · January 3, 2013

It is clear that when personalities become confused with opinion, the result can become an opportunity to sit on the sidelines for awhile and ponder the real meaning of the following
[list]
[*][color=#ff0000]While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, or purposeless inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters.[/color]
[/list]

Pepperturbo · January 3, 2013

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1357220440' post='6159165']
[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1357187671' post='6157871']
Penal golf course design didn't start with Pete Dye. Think
Pine Valley and Oakmont: courses I wish I could play but
will never have the chance.
[/quote]

There is a difference between penal and "unplayable", as some pros have suggested.
[/quote]

I agree, least regarding different definitions of those two words. Here's the issue; unlike people in this thread, I do not argue for people that should speak up for themselves. I can only argue on my behalf, as I do NOT know people that feel alined with what's purported here. Moreover, I have not encountered an "unplayable" course, even if my score is higher then normal. Sure some holes might be difficult, but that to me, doesn't mean its unplayable.

Since this is a subjective perception, who decides what is penal and what's unplayable?

bmellisen · January 3, 2013

[quote name='MtlJeff' timestamp='1355082792' post='6042595']
I've never played Tobacco Road but it's interesting because from what i have heard i would think it's actually a very good overall design. I've always wanted to play it and have friends in NC who i've asked to take me the next time i am down there for business.

Isn't Tobacco Road a course with fairly wide fairways, where the difficulty comes from being on the correct side, the risk/reward nature and the greens? I got the impression a 15 could play that course OK though if you miss wildly there is a lot of waste area correct?

funny you mention it because i actually really want to play that course i wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on it. I'm supposed to be in Raleigh in March
[/quote]

I had to stop reading this topic because it felt like I was punching myself in the face. But I do like tobacco rd. it's one of my favorite courses, but it can seem a little gimmicky to some. Most people I play with either love it or hate it. No in between. I think it's actually harder for a mid cap than for a low cap. I shot my low round there. If you can hit it were you aim, and keep all the visual intimidation out of your mind, it's scorable. It's a unique course, and worth playing if you are in the area IMO. If you need a 4th, let me know, I'm down. As long as you aren't intimidated by 320 yards high draws.

ryancjordan · January 3, 2013

There really is no point in this thread existing. The amount of evidence provided that a course is too hard is absolutely insurmountable. Everything from pros saying courses are too hard, to statistics showing less people playing, to statistics showing inflated scores at these courses. But who cares about evidence when the other side can take such marvelously witty, creative logical lines of argument as "move up a teebox" or "golf isn't supposed to be easy". Why use statistics and logic when you can just repeat something someone else said that is barely related?

Opinions are one thing, but pretending like both sides are just as right when one provides evidence and the other repeats some cliche phrase over and over again is just silly.

Fourmyle of Ceres · January 3, 2013

Numbers are not statistics and repeating second-hand complaints and assertions is not logic.

ryancjordan · January 3, 2013

Well I think you just broke the record for most disingenuous argument of all time.

First, I'm not sure what you think statistics mean, but statistics are very simply, a set of data, which the numbers that have been posted in this thread would certainly qualify as...Using data to support and argument and having the other side repeat "you should move up to the next tee box" is not a debate, its one person thinking and the other person repeating talking points.

Second, "[color="#282828"]repeating second-hand complaints and assertions is not logic" huh? People have posted quotes from PGA tour players confirming the very idea that we are debating here. You believe quoting someone is a "second hand complaint"? What on earth? Finally, people making assertions, as long as they are logical, is absolutely logic. How did you manage to fit so much wrong/disingenuous stuff into a single sentence?[/color]

SurfDuffer · January 4, 2013

[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1357263554' post='6163763']
Numbers are not statistics and repeating second-hand complaints and assertions is not logic.
[/quote]

So what you're saying is that this entire thread.....both sides of the argument....are nothing but a bunch of bunk.

kellygreen · January 4, 2013

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357302436' post='6166033']
[quote name='Fourmyle of Ceres' timestamp='1357263554' post='6163763']
Numbers are not statistics and repeating second-hand complaints and assertions is not logic.
[/quote]

So what you're saying is that this entire thread.....both sides of the argument....are nothing but a bunch of bunk.
[/quote]

No.

Because, at the end of the day, people vote with their feet. Golf is a game that is stagnating at the recreational level.

The game can either take steps to try to make itself more welcoming and inclusive...and try to overcome this stagnation.

Or, it can eventually degenerate into a game that is little more than a distraction for retirees and the idle-rich.

Fourmyle of Ceres · January 4, 2013

Are more difficult courses going out of business while easier ones flourish? What portion of the decline in participation has at difficult courses? Is it proportional to the number of such courses?

And what the heck do 20-year-old whinges from Nicklaus and other Tour players about Pete Dye's courses have to do with trends in golf participation over the last five years? They've been saying his courses were too hard ever since he built his first Tour venue.

This thread is like any other on an open forum. A bunch of people holding forth on their pre-existing opinions. Everyone lists the things they don't like about golf courses or other aspects of the game and then just asserts that their pet peeves have to be responsible for the terrible downturn facing the business of golf. Oh, and the sky is falling too.

As it is, was and ever shall be.

teejaywhy · January 4, 2013

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357087240' post='6150585']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1357058865' post='6148107']
Okay, Surf. I played a course out in California one of the last few times I was out there. Robinson Ranch, Valley Course.

[/quote]

OK. I looked it up. Looks like a nice course. Looked at lots of pictures and that course looks like a blast!!!!! What's the problem? If someone has basic skills and is [i]playing the proper tees[/i] they should have no problem having fun here.

[/quote]

70.0/135 from the [u]White[/u] tees (6025 yards)

from robinsonranchgolf.com:
[i]"Features 6 tough finishing holes appropriately named "Death Row"..."[/i]

Sounds like a grand time!

mdgboxx · January 4, 2013

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1357314616' post='6166915']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357087240' post='6150585']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1357058865' post='6148107']
Okay, Surf. I played a course out in California one of the last few times I was out there. Robinson Ranch, Valley Course.

[/quote]

OK. I looked it up. Looks like a nice course. Looked at lots of pictures and that course looks like a blast!!!!! What's the problem? If someone has basic skills and is [i]playing the proper tees[/i] they should have no problem having fun here.

[/quote]

70.0/135 from the [u]White[/u] tees (6025 yards)

from robinsonranchgolf.com:
[i]"Features 6 tough finishing holes appropriately named "Death Row"..."[/i]

Sounds like a grand time!
[/quote]

I suggested that they name it "Sleeping Beauty" and they said that it wouldn't sound intimidating enough. Patrons would have a tendency to "breeze" through it.

Pepperturbo · January 4, 2013

I am fully aware there's a segment of people on this board that buy the baloney "these guys (pros) are Gods". Evidence... :lol: I'd like to see the actual stats that show people are not playing golf because "courses are too difficult". Its more likely they are not playing because of the economy, its too costly, and commitments don't allow the time that golf demands.

Sorry, but Pros are just athletes that by and large, have little to no connection with average Joe golfer, nor do they play the courses average Joe plays. Consequently, if they opine on the subject, it's just another opinion, NOT scientific fact and labeling it as evidence is a joke of a rather large order.

ryancjordan · January 4, 2013

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357328954' post='6168391']
Sorry, but Pros are just athletes that by and large, have little to no connection with average Joe golfer, nor do they play the courses average Joe plays. Consequently, if they opine on the subject, it's just another opinion, NOT scientific fact and labeling it as evidence is a joke of a rather large order.
[/quote]

Okay yeah thats clearly below our standard for discussable evidence. You and FoC should just get back to repeating that people are playing the wrong tee box or that golf isn't supposed to be easy. Only then will we have a truly useful discussion where the same thing is repeated over and over again with nothing new learned.

Fourmyle of Ceres · January 4, 2013

I've said no such thing, by the way.

Because I do not perceive any so-called problem arising from the fact that some golf courses are very difficult. All I've said is that no evidence has been presented concerning an association between the difficulty of certain golf courses and the end of growth in participation, which people apparently expected to continue for ever and ever with no limit.

It's preposterous to suggest that the main factor driving a huge downturn in rounds of golf being played at all levels is the difficulty of the most difficult courses in the USA. The course I learned to play on is about as easy as a golf course could be and still be worth playing. In the last six years it has gone from being busy every day of the week to a virtual ghost town most days. It sure ain't because it suddenly got harder and it sure ain't because Jack Nicklaus thought the greens were unplayable at some high-$$$ Pete Dye course or another.

Pepperturbo · January 4, 2013

[quote name='ryancjordan' timestamp='1357331575' post='6168699']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357328954' post='6168391']
Sorry, but Pros are just athletes that by and large, have little to no connection with average Joe golfer, nor do they play the courses average Joe plays. Consequently, if they opine on the subject, it's just another opinion, NOT scientific fact and labeling it as evidence is a joke of a rather large order.
[/quote]

Okay yeah thats clearly below our standard for discussable evidence. You and FoC should just get back to repeating that people are playing the wrong tee box or that golf isn't supposed to be easy. Only then will we have a truly useful discussion where the same thing is repeated over and over again with nothing new learned.
[/quote]

Now you're turning this back on what we said. We never claimed our views were statically based, just experience based. I said more then once, I do NOT know anyone, that includes all my mid-hi handi friends that say, courses are unplayable or too difficult for them. I never heard anything remotely like that when I played inter-club team golf, neither has my wife, and they face more difficult ratings. I can't count the number of times those same mid-hi handi friends head to to Wolf Run in NV and take up 3-6 tee times.

You and others, on the other hand, argue as if providing stats, yet have nothing more then opinion on opinion. Then sarcasm in-lieu of admitting all you and others have provided is just as equal in subject value as what we say.

The fact is, there are NO proven stats that say golfers are leaving the game because of course difficulty (sounds self-serving), when if anything, it's costs and time commitment.

Sean2 · January 4, 2013

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1357314616' post='6166915']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357087240' post='6150585']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1357058865' post='6148107']
Okay, Surf. I played a course out in California one of the last few times I was out there. Robinson Ranch, Valley Course.

[/quote]

OK. I looked it up. Looks like a nice course. Looked at lots of pictures and that course looks like a blast!!!!! What's the problem? If someone has basic skills and is [i]playing the proper tees[/i] they should have no problem having fun here.

[/quote]

70.0/135 from the [u]White[/u] tees (6025 yards)

from robinsonranchgolf.com:
[i]"Features 6 tough finishing holes appropriately named "Death Row"..."[/i]

Sounds like a grand time!
[/quote]

Yeah, no...

SurfDuffer · January 4, 2013

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1357336553' post='6169295']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1357314616' post='6166915']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357087240' post='6150585']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1357058865' post='6148107']
Okay, Surf. I played a course out in California one of the last few times I was out there. Robinson Ranch, Valley Course.

[/quote]

OK. I looked it up. Looks like a nice course. Looked at lots of pictures and that course looks like a blast!!!!! What's the problem? If someone has basic skills and is [i]playing the proper tees[/i] they should have no problem having fun here.

[/quote]

70.0/135 from the [u]White[/u] tees (6025 yards)

from robinsonranchgolf.com:
[i]"Features 6 tough finishing holes appropriately named "Death Row"..."[/i]

Sounds like a grand time!
[/quote]

Yeah, no...
[/quote]

Just look up the pictures of that course. If this is your example of one of these unfair courses your whole argument is blown.

Pepperturbo · January 4, 2013

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1357314616' post='6166915']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357087240' post='6150585']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1357058865' post='6148107']
Okay, Surf. I played a course out in California one of the last few times I was out there. Robinson Ranch, Valley Course.

[/quote]

OK. I looked it up. Looks like a nice course. Looked at lots of pictures and that course looks like a blast!!!!! What's the problem? If someone has basic skills and is [i]playing the proper tees[/i] they should have no problem having fun here.

[/quote]

70.0/135 from the [u]White[/u] tees (6025 yards)

from robinsonranchgolf.com:
[i]"Features 6 tough finishing holes appropriately named "Death Row"..."[/i]

Sounds like a grand time!
[/quote]

It is... But, if its too tough pick the Gold tees, or the easier Mountain course. But, if both are too difficult, you can always consider Meadowlark Golf Club - it's short (5568), easy (115), and you can say you played the championship tips. :lol:

avrag · January 5, 2013

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357241122' post='6161523']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1357216337' post='6158939']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357151475' post='6154083']
But on every course effective long, mid and short irons are prerequisites for scoring.
[/quote]

But that was exatly what I am saying. A golfer who does not play as well as you will have trouble with the shots to massively defended greens, no matter which tees he uses. Those difficult shots to the greens will still be the problem. So SurfDuffer's argument that peole should play "proper" tees and their problems would solve themselves is not valid in my view, when a course offers no margin of error around the greens.
[/quote]

The basic goal of golf is to pick any one of "13" golf clubs and within reason, hit the ball in the air that clubs distance. From there, if said golfer chooses a course that offers minimal margin for error to a 3000+sqft green from, say, 150yds, and said golfer can't carry the distance, he's either chosen the wrong club, the wrong course, and or the wrong tees. Which ever it is, he needs practice and [u][b]or should be playing executive courses till he can properly choose a course that fits his skill, and carry the ball basic distances.[/b][/u]

If someone can't throw a basketball from the 3pt line, 24', and hit the backboard, he's not able to play basketball without having the 3pt line, maybe the free throw line moved forward to accommodate his inability. I am 5'10, and NOT able to dunk. Using your line of thinking, the standard height of the basket should be lowered to accommodate my height so I can dunk like the taller guys.

PS - regarding Nicklaus' supposed comment about stopping a ball on a car hood... someone care to show me any green that remotely close to the size of a car hood. Small greens are 2500+sq ft... the majority of hoods on tour are 4-8k sq foot. The person that can't hit a 6k sq ft green from 150yds shouldn't be playing that course.
[/quote]

You claim time and time again that you have many "mid hcp" friends. So, do those "mid hcp" friends have a higher than 80% chance of hitting the ball within a 5 yard circle from 150 yards out? If they do, then why are they "mid hcp"?
I can carry the ball 180 yards with a 6-iron with a good shot, thank you, but I am [u][b]inconsistent[/b][/u] with it. [u][b]Inconsistency,[/b][/u] Is the reason why mid hcp players are mid hcp players, at least in my experience. I am yet to meet theat mythical creature of a 12 hcp, who hits the same shots over and over again, they just happen to be really short. Yet, some really good golfers on this forum build their whole arguments of "playing forward" and sometimes even about when somebody should be allowed to play at all around that myth that there could be a point at which one could be assured of absolute certainties in this game, although there are none. Most people I play with most of the time are in the hcp range of 8 to 16 and all of them can look like a tour player for five or six or sometimes even 10 holes in a row, and then their [u][b]inconsistency[/b][/u] gets them again. And the difference between enjoying a round of golf or not for them is whether their bad shots cost them one shot or four, and this is what this thread is all about.
At what hcp would you draw the line at which one is allowed to play on a proper golf course or is doomed to stick to executive courses?
I remember reading one ridiculous opinion in this forum already which stated that people should play the most forward tees until they can break par (!). Is that your opinion as well?
There are people who will never break par, no matter from which tees they play, because whatever they do, they will not be consistent enough. So, should they not play at all?
I am well able to shoot low 80s scores on golf courses at about 6500 yards, CR 71/slope 122 to 130, even break 80 once a year maybe, but I do not enjoy having to take an 8 from the middle of the fairway after a slightly mishit mid-iron. That's what this thread is about.
And yes, there are people for whom no shot is automatic, not even a 3/4 wedge from 75 yards, although they are well able to shoot in the low 80s overall most of the time, and I know that this is not just me. I often play with a 2 hcp, and even he hits a wedge fat or thin from time to time, so there is no possible way of course management, which will leave him with a shot he can hit 1000 times out of 1000 tries. And on a really bad day, he can also shoot 87 on a relatively easy course, if everything goes wrong. And if a course is designed in a way which will punish a less than absolutely 100% perfect shot from the fairway with more than two lost stokes, even a player like him won't find that enjoyable.
The question which is discussed in this thread is not how good your good shots must be to play a given course but how much a course design should punish the bad shots. And "modern" course design has gone the way of overdoing that many times.
Let me just repeat the word [u][b]inconsistency[/b][/u] one more time. [u][b]Inconsistency[/b][/u] leads to bad shots, bad shots lead to lost shots. A course which allows to recover from a bad shot with a very good shot and cut the losses, is enjoyable for everybody, a course which leaves you dead after every less than perfect shot will not be enjoyable.
[u][b]Inconsistency.[/b][/u] Last time I checked, everybody who plays this game suffered from it, even the best in the world. In fact, the difference between the best in the world and us mere mortals is the amount of inconsistency, nothing else.
Your arguments could only be valid, if golfers were 100% consistent in what they are doing, which would be so boring that nobody would play this game any more. This is not bowling or darts, where once you are able to pull off the one required motion 99 times out of 100, you will just cruise along most of the time. This is more difficult, more demanding, and inconsistency will bite everybody at times. The question is, how severe will the punishment be.
I have never seen you play, and maybe you are the exception and are never inconsistent, but you would be the only person in the world who is when playing this game.

Sean2 · January 5, 2013

^^^and a well designed course, such as a Donald Ross design for example, will allow for that inconsistency while still challenging the very good golfer. However, the inconsistent golfer won't be looking at a 7 or 8 but rather a bogey or double (not to say he still can't post a big number...but is less likely too).

KDMullins · January 5, 2013

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357345377' post='6170083']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1357336553' post='6169295']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1357314616' post='6166915']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357087240' post='6150585']
[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1357058865' post='6148107']
Okay, Surf. I played a course out in California one of the last few times I was out there. Robinson Ranch, Valley Course.

[/quote]

OK. I looked it up. Looks like a nice course. Looked at lots of pictures and that course looks like a blast!!!!! What's the problem? If someone has basic skills and is [i]playing the proper tees[/i] they should have no problem having fun here.

[/quote]

70.0/135 from the [u]White[/u] tees (6025 yards)

from robinsonranchgolf.com:
[i]"Features 6 tough finishing holes appropriately named "Death Row"..."[/i]

Sounds like a grand time!
[/quote]

Yeah, no...
[/quote]

Just look up the pictures of that course. If this is your example of one of these unfair courses your whole argument is blown.
[/quote]

Yeah well, I've been there, and if the wind is blowing more than 15 mph (which it was when I played it), that place is virtually unplayable for a 20 handicap golfer.

What's interesting in this whole discussion is the undeniable fact that bad golfers still make the trek and shell out big bucks to play these places. Amazing how often I play one of these types of courses, and the course is jammed up with people who should not be there, resulting in a 5/1/2-6 hour round. Bad for the course, bad for the game. Also, although it would be impossible to prove, I'm afraid that for every one of those 20 handicaps that play these courses to say they did, there are two or three people that do it a few times and end up quitting the game...which, whether you realize it or not, hurts us all.

avrag · January 5, 2013

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1357413326' post='6173603']
^^^and a well designed course, such as a Donald Ross design for example, will allow for that inconsistency while still challenging the very good golfer. However, the inconsistent golfer won't be looking at a 7 or 8 but rather a bogey or double (not to say he still can't post a big number...but is less likely too).
[/quote]

Thank you for understanding what I am trying to say and for being able to put it in fewer words than I was.
The Schmidt/Curley designs I had the pleasure to play last spring were also great examples of challenging courses for all levels of abilities which punish bad shots without forcing you to just pick up and give up.

Sean2 · January 5, 2013

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1357419328' post='6174087']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1357413326' post='6173603']
^^^and a well designed course, such as a Donald Ross design for example, will allow for that inconsistency while still challenging the very good golfer. However, the inconsistent golfer won't be looking at a 7 or 8 but rather a bogey or double (not to say he still can't post a big number...but is less likely too).
[/quote]

Thank you for understanding what I am trying to say and for being able to put it in fewer words than I was.
The Schmidt/Curley designs I had the pleasure to play last spring were also great examples of challenging courses for all levels of abilities which punish bad shots without forcing you to just pick up and give up.
[/quote]

You're welcome Avrag. And what you describe is what we need: challenging courses suitable for all players.

Imp · January 5, 2013

And yet, in Hawaii, pros are unable to play the 1st round because the added weather has made a difficult course, unplayable in non-optimal conditions.

/thread

Pepperturbo · January 5, 2013

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1357411845' post='6173497']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357241122' post='6161523']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1357216337' post='6158939']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1357151475' post='6154083']
But on every course effective long, mid and short irons are prerequisites for scoring.
[/quote]

But that was exatly what I am saying. A golfer who does not play as well as you will have trouble with the shots to massively defended greens, no matter which tees he uses. Those difficult shots to the greens will still be the problem. So SurfDuffer's argument that peole should play "proper" tees and their problems would solve themselves is not valid in my view, when a course offers no margin of error around the greens.
[/quote]

The basic goal of golf is to pick any one of "13" golf clubs and within reason, hit the ball in the air that clubs distance. From there, if said golfer chooses a course that offers minimal margin for error to a 3000+sqft green from, say, 150yds, and said golfer can't carry the distance, he's either chosen the wrong club, the wrong course, and or the wrong tees. Which ever it is, he needs practice and [u][b]or should be playing executive courses till he can properly choose a course that fits his skill, and carry the ball basic distances.[/b][/u]

If someone can't throw a basketball from the 3pt line, 24', and hit the backboard, he's not able to play basketball without having the 3pt line, maybe the free throw line moved forward to accommodate his inability. I am 5'10, and NOT able to dunk. Using your line of thinking, the standard height of the basket should be lowered to accommodate my height so I can dunk like the taller guys.

PS - regarding Nicklaus' supposed comment about stopping a ball on a car hood... someone care to show me any green that remotely close to the size of a car hood. Small greens are 2500+sq ft... the majority of hoods on tour are 4-8k sq foot. The person that can't hit a 6k sq ft green from 150yds shouldn't be playing that course.
[/quote]

You claim time and time again that you have many "mid hcp" friends. So, do those "mid hcp" friends have a higher than 80% chance of hitting the ball within a 5 yard circle from 150 yards out? If they do, then why are they "mid hcp"?
I can carry the ball 180 yards with a 6-iron with a good shot, thank you, but I am [u][b]inconsistent[/b][/u] with it. [u][b]Inconsistency,[/b][/u] Is the reason why mid hcp players are mid hcp players, at least in my experience. I am yet to meet theat mythical creature of a 12 hcp, who hits the same shots over and over again, they just happen to be really short. Yet, some really good golfers on this forum build their whole arguments of "playing forward" and sometimes even about when somebody should be allowed to play at all around that myth that there could be a point at which one could be assured of absolute certainties in this game, although there are none. Most people I play with most of the time are in the hcp range of 8 to 16 and all of them can look like a tour player for five or six or sometimes even 10 holes in a row, and then their [u][b]inconsistency[/b][/u] gets them again. And the difference between enjoying a round of golf or not for them is whether their bad shots cost them one shot or four, and this is what this thread is all about.
At what hcp would you draw the line at which one is allowed to play on a proper golf course or is doomed to stick to executive courses?
I remember reading one ridiculous opinion in this forum already which stated that people should play the most forward tees until they can break par (!). Is that your opinion as well?
There are people who will never break par, no matter from which tees they play, because whatever they do, they will not be consistent enough. So, should they not play at all?
I am well able to shoot low 80s scores on golf courses at about 6500 yards, CR 71/slope 122 to 130, even break 80 once a year maybe, but I do not enjoy having to take an 8 from the middle of the fairway after a slightly mishit mid-iron. That's what this thread is about.
And yes, there are people for whom no shot is automatic, not even a 3/4 wedge from 75 yards, although they are well able to shoot in the low 80s overall most of the time, and I know that this is not just me. I often play with a 2 hcp, and even he hits a wedge fat or thin from time to time, so there is no possible way of course management, which will leave him with a shot he can hit 1000 times out of 1000 tries. And on a really bad day, he can also shoot 87 on a relatively easy course, if everything goes wrong. And if a course is designed in a way which will punish a less than absolutely 100% perfect shot from the fairway with more than two lost stokes, even a player like him won't find that enjoyable.
The question which is discussed in this thread is not how good your good shots must be to play a given course but how much a course design should punish the bad shots. And "modern" course design has gone the way of overdoing that many times.
Let me just repeat the word [u][b]inconsistency[/b][/u] one more time. [u][b]Inconsistency[/b][/u] leads to bad shots, bad shots lead to lost shots. A course which allows to recover from a bad shot with a very good shot and cut the losses, is enjoyable for everybody, a course which leaves you dead after every less than perfect shot will not be enjoyable.
[u][b]Inconsistency.[/b][/u] Last time I checked, everybody who plays this game suffered from it, even the best in the world. In fact, the difference between the best in the world and us mere mortals is the amount of inconsistency, nothing else.
Your arguments could only be valid, if golfers were 100% consistent in what they are doing, which would be so boring that nobody would play this game any more. This is not bowling or darts, where once you are able to pull off the one required motion 99 times out of 100, you will just cruise along most of the time. This is more difficult, more demanding, and inconsistency will bite everybody at times. The question is, how severe will the punishment be.
I have never seen you play, and maybe you are the exception and are never inconsistent, but you would be the only person in the world who is when playing this game.
[/quote]

Your argument regarding consistency has no bearing on course difficulty, therefore does NOT negate what my mid-high handi cap friends think regarding difficult / challenging courses. Again, I have not encountered that line of thought with my friends, or woman and friends from my last two clubs. And, that's what this subject is about. They like the challenge and look at their indexes as traveling well for team golf, and I feel the same way. Reason I play difficult courses.

When I took up the game a friend advised me to only play executive courses till I could hit the ball decently; so I did. Breaking par no. It was about a year before I moved to longer tougher courses and reached single digit inside of five years. You say you don't enjoy taking an 8 from the middle of the fairway, OK... Do I enjoy having a bad hole...NO, but wishing for easier courses is not my answer. My answer is try harder and better my game, so I don't repeat it.

Sure I can miss a green from 160yds, but its seldom. If I do, I typically get up and down. Still what happens to me with a low index has no bearing on this subject, because we're talking about what mid-hi handicap golfers feel on the matter. Again, not one of the people that I know in that handi range want easier courses. If they did, I'd surely hear about it.

profsmitty · January 5, 2013

[color=#000000][left]Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all came to the realization that it was not necessary to have the last word. Wouldn't it be an even better world if discussions about very complex ideas didn't have to be a zero-sum game that demanded that one position must be right and one side had to be wrong. Even in discussions about "fairness", we refuse to be "fair" with each other. One lovely characteristic of nature and the natural world (of which golf courses when designed correctly are a part of) is that it is incapable of being unequal, unethical, biased, or dishonest. A golf course has never been any of those things to me. Only people.[/left][/color]

kellygreen · January 6, 2013

[quote name='profsmitty' timestamp='1357441598' post='6175861']

[left][color=#000000]Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all came to the realization that it was not necessary to have the last word. Wouldn't it be an even better world if discussions about very complex ideas didn't have to be a zero-sum game that demanded that one position must be right and one side had to be wrong. Even in discussions about "fairness", we refuse to be "fair" with each other. One lovely characteristic of nature and the natural world (of which golf courses when designed correctly are a part of) is that it is incapable of being unequal, unethical, biased, or dishonest. A golf course has never been any of those things to me. Only people.[/color][/left]

[/quote]

Agreed.

There are no "unfair" courses. There are, however, courses that put forward UNREASONABLE tests of golf skill for the players who would be typically playing them. On these POORLY designed courses, no amount of "playing it forward" will help. In fact---sometimes---playing it forward makes the design problems even worse. Not better.