[THuckaby2]

No kidding.  It's also rare.  Which makes it fun.  I don't want to Seve it around. I often just have no choice.  And when I see a Seve shot, I'm fricking taking it.  None of this punch out sideways nonsense for me, unless it's the ONLY shot.  I'll take my triple like a man and go to the next -- because total medal score doesn't matter.  I want the great shot.  That's why I play.  What's so hard for people to understand about that?

Again, I absolutely understand why you play and what motivates you - it is really not that difficult to comprehend -and I think it is a very cool and very fun attitude.  You just can't possibly think that your way is the only way, do you?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave, I think you're really missing something here.  I'm gonna type this really slowly, because I've now said it at least ten times:

N O
O N E
S A I D
A N Y
P A R T
O F
T H I S
W A S
W R O N G
F O R
Y O U.

Will it sink in this time?

I really don't think anyone - even Patrick - said you should do anything but play the tips.

I also never said medal score was any determinant of what tees one should play.

It's strange to me you are missing so much of this, and putting words where they don't exist.  That ain't usually your style.  But that's ok, we all have bad days.

 

So here's one more try:

It's ok that you want to play the tips, Dave.  You hit the ball a ton and it's silly for you not to.  But not all of us hit the ball a ton, not all of us have your history, and some of us want a little better chance at success.  Neither way is right nor wrong nor the only way to approach the great game.

Hey, you set the threshold at 280 yards.  I can honestly say I have never hit a golf ball that far without some sort of help.  So again, I don't belong at the back tees, unless I'm there for masochism - which I actually like some times, but not often.

Can we close this NOW?

TH

[Mike Benham]

This reminds me of one of the old SNL skits ... "Jane you ignorant slut ..."[/i]

[Lou_Duran]

Based on my reading and discussions with several architects, in the past, most courses were designed from the back tees.  The variance in distance between the expert golfer and the average player has widened so much in the past few years that we are now playing two vastly different games.  So, some architects like Nicklaus are now saying that they're building courses more from the users' standpoint, then adding as an afterthought the Tiger tees for the small minority that should be playing them.

Courses like Kiawah-Ocean and many on the RTJ Trail are hardly playable from the far back tees.  In my opinion, these courses are better rated from a shorter set of tees, but not on all holes.

Due to differences in topography, climate, altitude, and other conditions, it is not useful to have distance parameters for rankings.  For example, Olympic-Lake at 6,800 yards +/- plays much longer than Paa-ko Ridge at over 7,500.

I like to play the back tees for many of the reasons shivas states.  There are but a few holes that I can't reach in "regulation" under normal conditions if I hit the ball well.  Moving up one set of tees often changes the character of the hole completely (like hitting wedge, SW at Pebble Beach on holes 9 and 10, respectively, from the tees set for play on that day).

Just as important for me, I like to know the state of my game over my playing life.  If I moved up a set of tees, I could probably save a few strokes, but lowering the standard would not give me a greater sense of satisfaction.  Shooting a 75 from the whites is just not any more rewarding than 80 from the blacks.  Perhaps my attitude about this would be different if I had played the shorter tees most of my life.

When I reach the age that I can no longer reach most of the holes in regulation, I'll move up.  What a pity to play a classic golf course just once from the up tees.  Certainly, MacKenzie did not want me to hit par 5s with a driver and mid-iron, or the tough par 4s with a driver-wedge.

And when I can no longer walk much of the time, I'll start rereading all my golf books for the upteenth time and just piddle around the practice area.  That day may not be far in the future.
 

[Andy Hughes]

I have read through all this, and one thing is abundantly clear...Shivas should be playing from the up tees  

[THuckaby2]

Mike and Andy, you guys are evil.  Damn funny, but still evil.

 

And Lou, you make very perfect sense.  Of course you also realize that this is not the ONLY approach to the game, right?  And some of us don't hit the ball that far, so don't have issues of reaching par fives with irons or having too many wedges into par fours, right?

I guess my bottom line is I tend to play the tees that promote the most fun.  You guys do to.  The fact that we define that differently should be no surprise.

TH

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Andy -

Reading this entire thread is playing from GCA.com's back tees...

 

[THuckaby2]

You all do know the funniest part of this, right?  If and when Dave and I do play together again - and play again we will, I can't allow that NOT to happen - there is absolutely no doubt what tees we'll play.  He'll want to go to the tippiest of tips, as well he should... and for all my blather my ego absolutely will not allow me to play up from him.

 

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Can I come along with the armband and the walking cane seat to officiate???

[THuckaby2]

James, you are welcome.  Just remember also that Dave and I are successful former partners at GCA-related events and golf wise his long-hitting ying melds quite will with my short and straigh-hitting yang.  The adversarial nature of this thread is most definitely NOT our usual thing - outside of his fixation on calling a long-ago Northwestern football victory over Notre Dame an "upset", which is so obviously untrue when the clearly better team just did what they should have done that fateful day.

I have a feeling I am gonna love Dave's response to all this.

 

[Lou_Duran]

TomH,

As a libertarian, I absolutely have no problem with you or anyone else doing your thing.  We play golf for a variety of reasons and I am uncomfortable saying that mine as opposed to yours are the right ones.

BTW, this ego thing should be laid by the wayside.  In the big money games at my home club (to which I don't get within shouting distance from), I've seen gamblers in the same fivesome play from three different sets of tees.  I guess that when it comes to $$$$, one's wallet is more important than his manhood.

BTW2, you are longer than most, so moving up a set of tees is not a necessity.   However, I suspect that with your game, you gain a much larger advantage from playing a shorter course than shivas would (e.g. O-Lake from the second set of tees vs. the backs).  Maybe for you shooting 75 at 6,300 yards is more fun than 80 at 6800.  Different strokes for different folks.

But when you rate the course, which set of tees do you think reveals the "true" sense of the course?  A number of difficult courses are kittens in comparison from the next set up.  Resistance to scoring has to matter a little in the rating.  Don't you think?  How highly would Spyglass be rated from 6,500 yards?

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

Great stuff.  Great points.  Great questions. Let me address a few things:

1. When money's involved, hell yes egos get put by the wayside.  I also just don't play for money all that often (another huge difference between me and my former partner, btw).

2. I am longer than most golfers, true.  But I am absolutely shorter than most 3-4 handicappers.  But you're right - the shorter the course is, the better off I am, as it means I get to hit some wedges or shorter irons - which he does anyway regardless of the tees at a lot of courses.  But as for how I feel about stroke-play success, well... it depends on the course, and remember that's not what drives me that much in general.  Using that measure though, I am ecstatic with anything under 80 at Pasa, which is about 6400 from the tips.  Same would go for Cypress Point.   But the same also goes for Spyglass, which is 500+ yards longer.  But just like my friend Dave, stroke play doesn't drive me all that much... I am much like him in that single shots tend to make my day much more than 18-hole scores.  At this point in my life, having played so much golf in so many forms, it takes something extreme in an 18-hole score to get me to care much either way.  That is, absurdly good or absurdly bad.  Anything in between doesn't matter that much.

3. I rate a course about one time for every 50 rounds I play, so that's not very relevant.  But when that occurs, what I do - since a required criterion is resistance to scoring - is play the longest set of tees that seem reasonable, that is, that anyone ever really plays.  That might be the tips, but might be one set up, at courses that have "ceremonial" monster back tees.  Then resistance to scoring is determined based on that.  For all the rest, it doesn't matter much what tees I play, as it's not that tough to extrapolate and use one's imagination, as well as observational skills.

But good lord, how did this turn into another ratings discussion?

TH

[Tom_Doak]

I do agree with Dave S. and Matt W. to an extent ... that every course ought to have a couple of holes which are really long two-shotters, to offer the potential thrill they seek.

But, Dave, I think there should only be a couple of those holes, so to get your thrill there is some pressure on you not to drive it into the trees THAT time.  I can be really cruel that way.

I was convinced of this line of thinking by working for Pete Dye, who twenty years ago, was building all his long par-4's at 470 yards and thinking about 485.  He kept talking about how Ben Hogan had to hit a 1-iron into the 18th at Merion, and Tour pros never hit a 1-iron into a green anymore.

Then, Pete would complain when people played his golf courses from too far back.  He said somebody like me should be on the white tees, where all the par-4's were 400, and they played for me like they played for Greg Norman from the back.  So I asked him why he wanted that ... if he wanted Greg to hit a 1-iron into a green but couldn't make it happen, why should he deprive me from the chance to hit a 1-iron into a green?

So, Shivas, I do understand your reasoning.  I just don't want 18 holes of it.

[THuckaby2]

Tom, you'll get a chance to watch some NUfootball tonight on ESPN against TCU.  If you can't stomach watching Andrea Mitchell's [insert adjective here] countenance anymore, I suggest you tune in.  

And I suggest you tune in to what I'm saying.  Play the up tees.  Be my guest.  And Pat's the one who challenged my "6700 vs. 7700 makes no difference" comment (which, BTW, included only a smallish amount of hyperbole).  

Pat's the one who said that I consider length the sole determinant of difficulty.  He even suckered Doak into agreeing.

What I'm hearing here is that most people would have more fun if they just moved up a set.  I just don't buy that.  I think people are smart enough to be playing where they want to as it is.  It's not as if these damn newfangled regular tees are a new phenomenon or anything.  They've been there forever.  And over time, some golfers have decided that they prefer the tips.  The system has already worked itself out.  whoever wants up plays up and whoever wants back plays back.  What I don't like is us sitting here pretending like we know better than people where they should be playing from.

David:

I was going to remind you of tonight's TV viewing.  Hell yes I shall be tuning in.  Go purple.

As for the rest, fair enough, your arguments continue to be with Patrick, not with me.

Of course I never suggested anywhere that anyone but the golfer himself knows what tees are the most fun for him.  To me that's basic logic, eminently acceptable.  I just did read into this you telling ME (several times, I might add) how I should be playing the tips, whereas I have said time and time again that's great for you, but not for me... So who's telling who what's best for whom?

But perhaps I read this wrong.

And perhaps I should stay the hell out of arguments between you and Patrick.  

But the bottom line is also that variety does remain the spice of life, and golf.  I think by our choice of tees we are each seeking this.  I'm trying to avoid too many shots that I find too long, you're trying to avoid too many shots that you find to short, but both of us don't want all 18 holes one way or the other, like Tom D. just said.

Fair enough?

TH

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

TH/DS -

Everytime N.D. loses, somebody's upset!

A few more posts here, and we will be at International (Mass.) or The Monster at Kiamesha Lake back tees of posts.

A little incendiary bomb lobbed in to fan the flames...

If we are rating courses (Highly subjective), and a component of that rating is Resistance to Scoring vs. Par (4's used to be anything between 251 and 470 yards), and Par is judged to be the score that is "The number of shots taken by an expert/scratch player plus two putts on any hole," WHY WOULDN'T we rate the dang thang from way back thar?

Course Rating is (Mostly) a factor of distance, while Slope takes the bogeyy golfer into account.  If we were to grade in the "Fun Factor", (And Why Not) we could use smiley faces or stars or whatever as the third element in the scorecard mix (Idea:  Let's lightheartly call them "Mucci's")  

e.g. NGLA -
For the 0-6 Handicapper from the Tips, 4 Mucci's
7-24 Handicapper from the Whites, 5 Mucci's
25+ Handicapper, 0 Mucci's (Come back and see us when you can appreciate the shot values)

A final thought:  WHY NOT PUT SUGGESTED TEES FOR HANDICAP RATINGS ON THE SCORECARD?  (Not shouting, just want everyone to see my answer to the "Why won't golfers play the tees that were meant for them)  During my only trip to Scotland, most of the clubs that I played at requested to see my handicap card/letter of introduction from my club before they would let me play the S.S.S. tees.

Got to go get ready for my Club Championship...

JWK


 

[THuckaby2]

James:

Whew.  That's a lot packed into one post.  Just taking these systematically....

1. At least the way the magazine for whom I do rating it, Resistance to Scoring does not mention par as part of the equation.  Subtle distinction?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  The deal is how difficult is the course for the scratch player from the back tees.  So hell yes one should rate playing the back tees.  I just tend to disdain ceremonial tees that are never used.

2. PLEASE don't mix the highly objective course rating/slope process (which I also do) with the incredibly subjective "course rating/ranking" attempts.  The purity of the former will be forever tainted by the mix.  That being said, I do like the "Mucci" system.

3. Why not put suggested tees on signs or on the scorecard?  Because I swear to god, that will encourage more people to play farther back than they should, just out of ego.  What long-hitting golfer is gonna let a scorecard or sign tell him where to play, no matter what his index is?  Not to cast aspersions on my buddy Dave S., but as you can tell from all this, he's gonna play the tips no matter what, as he should.  But if he decides to get back into the handicap game... well it wouldn't take much for his index to get above 6... and then are you telling me if some course says tips only for 0-5, that's gonna stop him?  If anything it just steels his resolve!  And remember, blather here notwithstanding, truth be known Dave is a very upstanding guy who does indeed do what's best for the game.  So if even he acts this way... good lord, what are all the ego-driven dorks who CAN'T handle it gonna do?

So I say leave these off - few follow them anyway, and for too many it's just a temptation they need not face.

Scotland's treatment of visitors is very sane, btw.  As per usual, they do everything right when it comes to golf.  But of course, at these places, you are the visitor and thus you do what they let you do.  That's not really what we're talking about here... We're talking about what members do at private clubs, or anyone does at a public.

Good luck in the club championship!  Such can be quite a thrill, I hear.

 

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Tom -

Liked a lot about your response.

FYI - Our Club Champ this weekend is Match Play from the Tips. ;>

We have also added the Handicap Club Champ. to the mix this weekend as a separate Match Play event from the MGA White Plates.

Obviously the only drawback is that I can't play in both.  One year I gave 26 shots and won by virtue of an eagle and 2 birdies in the last 4 holes.  I was five down at the turn.

Never won the big kahuna though.  I guess there is a first time for everything

JWK

How did it feel on 35?

[THuckaby2]

JWK:

Small world.  Our club champ. was match play from the tips.  Loved it.  But competition and regular golf remain two different things, as the great Bobby Jones was among the first to note.    But yep, we also do flights played at handicap differences, from the whites.  You're darn right though - winning both would be the maximum in golf cool.

And yes there is a first time for anything, as some idiot recently proved.  And it was quite a thrill - just note it occurred on 17, not 35.  Oh I wish they'd let us do a 36-hole final... but 18 be all we get.

TH

[Mike Benham]

This reminds me of one of the old SNL skits ... "Jane you ignorant slut ..."[/i]

One more question to ask, who is, TH or Shivas, Jane[/i] ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I've seen your wedge game in action and it's awesome.  But how much pleasure do you get from yet another 80 yard sand wedge nustled up to within 4 feet on a 350 yard par 4?

When I was playing well it depended on how I evaluated, planned and executed the shot.  If I hit a low screamer with 6,000 rpm's and it took it's intended two hops and came to a dead stop, that was fun.

From the time I was 50, right up until last year I was fairly long off the tee, but length only mattered if I could put the ball where it needed to be positioned.  A long drive, deep in the woods, gave me no satisfaction.

I don't tend to look at golf shots in isolation, I usually view them in a context of continuum, meaning that it took a 270 yard drive to position me so that I had that 80 yard wedge in your above example.[/color]

Now how much pleasure do you get from striping a 4 wood to 10 feet into a 500 yard par 5?

I get great satisfaction from planning and executing that shot.  The satisfaction associated with the successful execution of a shot increases as the challenge of the shot increases.

That 80 yard wedge, over a deep bunker, with trouble on all sides, down wind, isn't the piece of cake everyone thinks.
It requires a special set of skills, mental and physical, and the evaluation, planning and successful execution of that shot is highly rewarding.

As is a 300 yard drive with perfect flight and trajectory.

The beauty of golf is the diversity of shots that the architecture and your mind will blend to create.

I'm not saying you view the game in one dimension, but it seems that all of your emphasis is on the long drive.
Not necessarily a perfectly shaped drive, not necessarily a perfectly flighted drive, but a long drive.  So, perhaps the diversity, created by the architecture and my mind, makes an inordinate variety of shots more appealing to me.[/color]

Here's another one I want you to answer: which puts a bigger smile on your face: making a 4 footer or snaking in a 30 footer for birdie?  

Wednesday I made an 84 foot birdie putt.
Initially, after I had hit a 3-wood into the green, I wanted to get down in two.  As I was standing over the putt, I said to myself, "you know, you used to make some of these in the good old days"  I made perfect contact, and right off the blade announced that this might be a great putt.  Sure enough, it went in, and, I was in a tight match with competitors of 40 years.  So the satisfaction was much greater then making a 4 footer.  But, the reason it's more satisfying is, that it's more challenging than a 4 footer, but, it's not an impossible shot.  In addition, there's less pressure on the expectations of making that putt, and far more pressure should you miss the 4 footer.[/color]

No BS, please.  This isn't a political convention.  

What happens when you stiff a wedge?  Ho hum. Right?  Make a 4 footer for birdie.  That's what you're SUPPOSED to do.  You probably don't even crack a smile anymore.  Stiff a 4 wood.  I'd bet even YOU smile over than one.  Snake in a 30 footer?  Same deal.

It's never ho-hum when I stiff a wedge, there's always great satisfaction, but, the more difficult the challenge, the greater the satisfaction with the successful planning and execution of the shot.
But, when the challenge of the shot becomes unreasonable, and unyielding, the game ceases to be fun, and inordinate distance is squeezing the fun out of the game.

Try playing the 2nd hole at the Medalist from the back tees into a good wind from the west, a not uncommon occurence.

Stay there all day, have a hot line to the pro shop, but you'll run out of balls before you run out of sunlight, and you'll still be trying to force those carries when you're enjoying that beautiful sunset[/color]

You gotta be out of your mind if you pick the former in either scenario.  EVERYBODY picks the latter.  Why? Because distance matters.  

Face it -- both chicks and dudes dig the long ball.  It's been that way since time immemorial.   The longer the shot, the tougher it is, all things being equal.  Why the hell do you think the sheperds invented 400 and 500 yard holes in the first place?  Because 100, 200 and sooner or later 300 were too easy and no fun, that's why!!

Look at what powerball did to men's tennis.

Golf is heading in the same direction.

P.S.  Chicks dig winners[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()