This is why you shouldn't make up your own rules.

[Shorty]

Hypothetical situation:

You're surfing the web about golf and you come across an article about a "World Junior Golf Championships" where there are numerous age brackets.

You discover that the winner of the under 10s shot 5 over par.

Further searching leads you to some video where you see these kids playing par 4s of 150 metres or less and Par 3s of 50 metres from "tees" planted in the middle of the fairways, miles from the real tees.

The kids are cute, they hit it nicely...that's not the point.

10 or 20 years later you read that (insert future  famous name here) "shot 5 over par in 2011 in the World Age Championships" with no asterisk or disclaimer.

Now.....does it make  you a "hater" when you say that that score is not legitimate?

Surely a 10 year old shooting 95 off proper tees is a genuine achievement, rather than some manufactured nonsense which actually devalues genuine achievement which is up for comparison.

This is why some people get pedantic about aces in practice rounds or eagles or whatever in dubious events or circumstances.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Hypothetical situation:

You're surfing the web about golf and you come across an article about a "World Junior Golf Championships" where there are numerous age brackets.

You discover that the winner of the under 10s shot 5 over par.

Further searching leads you to some video where you see these kids playing par 4s of 150 metres or less and Par 3s of 50 metres from "tees" planted in the middle of the fairways, miles from the real tees.

The kids are cute, they hit it nicely...that's not the point.

10 or 20 years later you read that (insert future  famous name here) "shot 5 over par in 2011 in the World Age Championships" with no asterisk or disclaimer.

Now.....does it make  you a "hater" when you say that that score is not legitimate?

Surely a 10 year old shooting 95 off proper tees is a genuine achievement, rather than some manufactured nonsense which actually devalues genuine achievement which is up for comparison.

This is why some people get pedantic about aces in practice rounds or eagles or whatever in dubious events or circumstances.

Well, I will just say this.  Those 150 yard par 4s are probably pretty proportional to their ability and distances.  We had a 6 year old from ND that went and played in the world jr nationals for his age division.  He has a website and everything.  If you watch the videos he is playing 100-150 yard holes.  They even bragged about a 6 he carded on a 200 yard hole.  But when he can only hit 100 yards off the tee then a 150 yard hole makes sense as a par 4.

There kids, what does it matter.  They play on smaller football fields, smaller baseball diamonds, run shorter distances in track and cross country.  Why should they play 400 yard holes when they will take 4-5 shots to even get to the green.

[Lihu]

Hypothetical situation: You're surfing the web about golf and you come across an article about a "World Junior Golf Championships" where there are numerous age brackets. You discover that the winner of the under 10s shot 5 over par. Further searching leads you to some video where you see these kids playing par 4s of 150 metres or less and Par 3s of 50 metres from "tees" planted in the middle of the fairways, miles from the real tees. The kids are cute, they hit it nicely...that's not the point. 10 or 20 years later you read that (insert future  famous name here) "shot 5 over par in 2011 in the World Age Championships" with no asterisk or disclaimer. Now.....does it make  you a "hater" when you say that that score is not legitimate? Surely a 10 year old shooting 95 off proper tees is a genuine achievement, rather than some manufactured nonsense which actually devalues genuine achievement which is up for comparison. This is why some people get pedantic about aces in practice rounds or eagles or whatever in dubious events or circumstances.

I see your point about par distances being age or ability dependent. However, I thought from standard men's tees that a consensus of male scratch golfers determines the par, and the same goes for the ladies tees.

[LuciusWooding]

While I think it's perfectly legitimate to be proud of winning in any head to head event, I don't think the tagline of someone shooting a score is worth claiming. Then again I place little importance on score without any context. 5 over par could be an incredible accomplishment or nothing special. For example, I shot "5 over" on the front 9 of a relatively standard course in a casual round. The winner of a British Open could also shoot 5 over for 18 on sunday on a day when no one breaks par due to 40mph wind.

I think there's also a big difference between junior and adult competitive golf. You never see grown players go through a total body change and need to relearn the game. There are plenty of players who are pretty average juniors that turn into incredible players due to the gift of athleticism. Then there are those who lose interest in the game or choose other sports. So success at that level really doesn't translate much to later in life. It's as much for the parents as anything, IMO. I certainly agree that a legitimate 95 from men's tees is a much better achievement, as it indicates the kid's skills will translate better than 5 over on a pitch and putt. No reason not to be proud of either, but the 95 shows much more potential to be excited about than the 5 over.

I also would like to add that teeing off from the middle of the fairways messes with the course design. Obviously forced carries over water are a bit unfair for 10 year olds hitting driver instead of a wedge, but the designer's plans are basically shot at that point.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by trackster

There kids, what does it matter.  They play on smaller football fields, smaller baseball diamonds, run shorter distances in track and cross country.  Why should they play 400 yard holes when they will take 4-5 shots to even get to the green.

Exactly my point. You don't say they ran 100 metres in 9 seconds when they run 50 metres.

My point is that certain things in sport are absolute and of course you have categories and modified courts, etc. - but Tiger Woods shooting even par on  a par 72 course from the tips at age 11 is not the same as little Johnnie playing a par round on a course of 3000m.

When someone says "Did you know that he shot 5 over at such and such a course?", you have to think about what that actually means in terms of what constitutes a golf course. And I'm not suggesting 200m water carries for 8 year olds.

What I'm suggesting is that we stop dumbing down our sport to make every child feel like a prodigy and every hacker feel like he has something in common with the PGA tour guys.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Shorty

What I'm suggesting is that we stop dumbing down our sport to make every child feel like a prodigy and every hacker feel like he has something in common with the PGA tour guys.

I do not see any dumbing down in teeing from 150m mark for under 10 year olds.

Gladly you presented this as hypothetical situation....

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by luu5

I do not see any dumbing down in teeing from 150m mark for under 10 year olds.

Gladly you presented this as hypothetical situation....

Probably better to read my original post in context.

Or should a 60 year old be boasting of the "hole in one" he had at age 7 (but not mention that it was from 50 yards)?

[Lihu]

Hypothetical situation: You're surfing the web about golf and you come across an article about a "World Junior Golf Championships" where there are numerous age brackets. You discover that the winner of the under 10s shot 5 over par. Further searching leads you to some video where you see these kids playing par 4s of 150 metres or less and Par 3s of 50 metres from "tees" planted in the middle of the fairways, miles from the real tees. The kids are cute, they hit it nicely...that's not the point. 10 or 20 years later you read that (insert future  famous name here) "shot 5 over par in 2011 in the World Age Championships" with no asterisk or disclaimer. Now.....does it make  you a "hater" when you say that that score is not legitimate? Surely a 10 year old shooting 95 off proper tees is a genuine achievement, rather than some manufactured nonsense which actually devalues genuine achievement which is up for comparison. This is why some people get pedantic about aces in practice rounds or eagles or whatever in dubious events or circumstances.

Okay, it all makes sense to me now why the scratch or close to scratch players argued over the legitimacy of a certain claim. I suppose its because the better a player you are, the better you know the rules because even one stroke can mean a very large percentage of how much you were over par.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Probably better to read my original post in context.

Or should a 60 year old be boasting of the "hole in one" he had at age 7 (but not mention that it was from 50 yards)?

At age 60, most people are judged by what they have done later in life. If he has holed out (from 50 meters), so what, nobody probably thinks that he has wasted his talent if he has not been playing on Tour.

[MS256]

Surely golfers at the highest levels don't spend any time worrying about any perception that a kid (or one of us) is actually close to their level by the scores we shoot.

I admit that some of the non-golfing public doesn't have a clue (I've had to explain to a couple of people that our 72s or 73s are a world apart from those scores in a US Open).

They shorten Little League fields (and even put the ball on a tee for the really young ones), lower basketball goals, and play with smaller footballs (and have weight limits for backs so the other kids don't get killed) to make the games more playable and more fun. It keeps the kids in the game and helps in learning correct mechanics. It's up to the public to understand that those 20 home runs on a Little League field, against Little League pitching mean nothing more than that a kid had a good year in Little League. That same kid may not even be a starter by the time he gets in high school (much less higher up than that).

Same for golf.

[indyvai]

I don't see a problem with it...

[Shorty]

I don't see a problem with it...

Oh well, why not just call everyone a scratch player and adjust the course length to accommodate this? Let's just make the mechanism for differentiating one for equalizing in a way that works against the purpose of e handicap?

[Valleygolfer]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackster

There kids, what does it matter.  They play on smaller football fields, smaller baseball diamonds, run shorter distances in track and cross country.  Why should they play 400 yard holes when they will take 4-5 shots to even get to the green.

Exactly my point. You don't say they ran 100 metres in 9 seconds when they run 50 metres.

My point is that certain things in sport are absolute and of course you have categories and modified courts, etc. - but Tiger Woods shooting even par on  a par 72 course from the tips at age 11 is not the same as little Johnnie playing a par round on a course of 3000m.

When someone says "Did you know that he shot 5 over at such and such a course?", you have to think about what that actually means in terms of what constitutes a golf course. And I'm not suggesting 200m water carries for 8 year olds.

What I'm suggesting is that we stop dumbing down our sport to make every child feel like a prodigy and every hacker feel like he has something in common with the PGA tour guys.

Then we should call any score from anything other than the pro tees an *score? Golf is set up to negotiate for abilities. Anyone that uses a forward tee could be looked at in the same light. Scoring is scoring regardless. Aces are aces because of the hole, mindset and you only get one try. If your swings are full you have to control them just like any other age bracket. The score may not reflect the difficulty of navigating hazards as much but we don't sit on this forum and talk about 3-11 year old golfers UNLESS they shoot an amazing round on a full length golf course or maybe get two aces in a round and someone with any clout witnessed the endeavor.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

Originally Posted by indyvai

I don't see a problem with it...

Oh well, why not just call everyone a scratch player and adjust the course length to accommodate this? Let's just make the mechanism for differentiating one for equalizing in a way that works against the purpose of e handicap?

When you say things like this it makes me wonder just how mean spirited you really are.  I know it's your style to be a bit of an ass here, but we are talking about kids under the age of 10.  Kids who weigh in at 50 pounds (22.6 kilos) or less.  I guess you'd just prefer that they not start the game until they are in their teens so they can play on a course which you might approve of.  And obviously none of my lifetime accomplishments mean anything either since I've played 99% of my golf from other tees than the tips.  What a large head you must have.

To Trackster:  I know a kid like the one you posted about (my last supervisor at work before I retired is his grandfather).  He too has a website.  He was on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer when he was 3, and has been pretty much tearing up the Colorado junior golf scene ever since he was old enough to be allowed to compete.  This is his website - Brayden Bozak .  Bray is the biggest golf nut I've ever met.  This is a photo of him hitting balls off his Grandpa's patio at age 4 - you can see what I mean.

[cda77]

Quote:

Further searching leads you to some video where you see these kids playing par 4s of 150 metres or less and Par 3s of 50 metres from "tees" planted in the middle of the fairways, miles from the real tees.

The kids are cute, they hit it nicely...that's not the point.

So if there were 'actual' tee boxes that reflected the yardage the kids played, call them preteen or super junior tees, then your problem with the score disappears?  I mean if a 10 year old in little league bats .625 you don't honestly compare that batting average to a major league average, do you?

[cda77]

I have another scenario for you.  I have a son who is almost 7.  We go play a course that he can play the entire course from the red tees, (only three sets).  His best score this year is 104, he wants to break 100 before going back to school.  If he does, there will be much celebration and I will consider it quite an accomplishment for him.

The last time we played the course, I shot 68.  3 under from the tips.  Is that an accomplishment for me?  Sure, I have only been on the 60's a couple of times in my life and the last time was probably 15 years ago.

Now I will tell you the course has a slope of 113 and a rating of 70.

I will also tell you, ZERO bunkers, completely flat, little OB and only one hole with water that really doesn't come into play.

I will also tell you the course is 5300 yards from the tips.

So does Dad brag about a 68 on this course, NO I do not,

Will Dad brag when his 6 year old son breaks 100 from the reds on this course, DAMN right because the course is STILL to long for him from the Reds.

[David in FL]

First off, the rules clearly allow for and accept a variety of tee boxes, so I don't see that varying tees according to ability is the equivalent of "making up your own rules"......

Beyond that though, I'm perfectly fine with people playing the tees that best suit their abilities.  Scratch that......I prefer that people play the tees that best suit their abilities.  Regardless of age or gender.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

When you say things like this it makes me wonder just how mean spirited you really are.  I know it's your style to be a bit of an ass here, but we are talking about kids under the age of 10.  Kids who weigh in at 50 pounds (22.6 kilos) or less.  I guess you'd just prefer that they not start the game until they are in their teens so they can play on a course which you might approve of.  And obviously none of my lifetime accomplishments mean anything either since I've played 99% of my golf from other tees than the tips.  What a large head you must have.

Once again -  someone responds without even thinking about the point I am making.

Why is it that  whenever there is an attempt at a philosophical discussion, there are knee-jerk reactions which deflect the argument and make it out that people are attacking kids or trying to take away the enjoyment of the game?

I am actually talking about people levelling the playing field to the point where everyone is seen as a prodigy or an accomplished player. Or at least trying to talk about the achievements of players with some fairness.

My post has nothing at all to do with kids playing and loving the game.

Look up a British documentary called "Trophy Kids" - and in particular look at "The Wolf", Lee Spurling.

Better stil, check out his appalling father, who thinks that at a certain age, his son was more accomplished than Tiger.

He's showing him the Ferraris he's going to be buying and trying to place bets on his son winning a major by the age of 21, and thinks the bookmakers are scared of him.