or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is an Albatross? (OT Stuff from "First Albatross" Thread)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is an Albatross? (OT Stuff from "First Albatross" Thread) - Page 4

post #55 of 82

Let's try to put this whole thing to bed.  I'm going to bet that most reasonable people would agree that ...

 

A)  475 yards is on the shorter end, however, is a legitimate length for a par 5 for a double digit handicap.

 

B)  An albatross accomplished in a scramble is not officially an albatross.

 

C)  Holing out from 140 yards is impressive and worth praise regardless of the circumstances.

 

Fair?

post #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Let's try to put this whole thing to bed.  I'm going to bet that most reasonable people would agree that ...

 

A)  475 yards is on the shorter end, however, is a legitimate length for a par 5 for a double digit handicap.

 

B)  An albatross accomplished in a scramble is not officially an albatross.

 

C)  Holing out from 140 yards is impressive and worth praise regardless of the circumstances.

 

Fair?

 

I'll agree with your A and C.  But you will never convince me on B.  I played the hole 100% by the rules.  The ball was placed on a tee driven to a spot.  From that exact spot it was deposited into the cup.  The type of round is irrelevant. 

 

And with that I am done with this thread.

 

To all the support thank you.

post #57 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Let's try to put this whole thing to bed.  I'm going to bet that most reasonable people would agree that ...

A)  475 yards is on the shorter end, however, is a legitimate length for a par 5 for a double digit handicap.

B)  An albatross accomplished in a scramble is not officially an albatross.

C)  Holing out from 140 yards is impressive and worth praise regardless of the circumstances.

Fair?
You forgot the impressive 335 yard drive that got him there.
a1_smile.gif)
post #58 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Anyway, yes, like I said, it's for course rating purposes. But they don't just pull the distances an average scratch golfer hits the ball out of a hat. They have determined that the average scratch golfer needs two shots to reach a 470 yard hole. I.e., such a hole is at the high end of a scratch golfer's ability to reach in two. So if a less-than-scratch golfer plays that hole, it makes perfect sense for it to be a par 5.

 

It's off topic, but your understanding of course ratings, the "scratch golfer," and all of that is a little lacking. It's enough to matter in a conversation like this, but again, it's off topic. I will note that we have a 482-yard par four at Whispering Woods. It plays uphill slightly (#10).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Huh? The area from *where* to the hole? I've never heard of a transition area, please explain what that is and why it matters in this discussion, You can quibble about "center of the green" and "transition areas" (whatever that means) all you want, but in the end it doesn't change the length of the hole by more than a few yards.

 

If you don't know what transition areas are, it's clearly not your area of expertise, and I only responded initially to your comments because you said some things that weren't entirely accurate about course ratings, the "scratch golfer," and so on. Simply put, or boiled down, the "scratch golfer" argument does not support your position that it's a true par five, and thus, it doesn't support Trackster.

post #59 of 82
Thread Starter 
To the people who have responded by trying to argue good for you. To those who have responded by simply calling me names or anything Ive posted names shame on you.You are not helping anything. If you want to argue thats good and what a forum is for-Just have something to say other than to call me names.

I have a 300 or so yard par four at my course that has a big pond in front. If I play from the ladies tees its 210 or so. Should I be satisfied with the "eagles" I make there when I hit 4iron to the green and make the putt from the ladies tees? It is marked as a par four for them too.

None of you will answer that question because you know the truth. He was playing from the wrong tees-He had to it was a scramble I get that-But I wouldnt go around bragging about my albatross when the hole plays 465 yards.
post #60 of 82

Wow. Members who I had previously had respect for have shown their true colors in this thread. I'm not sure how you can feel ok about being so petty. Interpreting the rules to discredit or marginalize someone else's accomplishment is on the same level as doing the same to make oneself look better. 

 

The man was playing a scramble by the rules, finished the hole in two shots and the scorecard had the hole as a par 5. Any of that untrue?

 

Whether you believe the hole should be a par 4 or whether he was playing a scramble and you presume he was in a different frame of mind is irrelevant. But thanks for sharing your opinions as inappropriate as they were. 

 

The next time we're out playing a fun and meaningless round of golf from the "geriatric" middle tees, the sun is shining and the wind is at our backs, I'm going to modify the scorecard based on The Sand Trap Rule. "Sorry guys, this hole just isn't difficult enough for my standards". My playing partners will understand when I tell them that wasn't really a birdie they just sunk. Pretty sure the groundskeepers would find me beaten to death with a driver shoved up my ass.

 

I can only imagine ('cause I'll sure as hell never pull it off) how it must feel to play a hole like the OP's, share the moment with a golfing community like the Sand Trap (that has, for the most part, reasonable members) and then have it picked apart.

 

Many posts on this forum deserve harsh responses. His wasn't one of them. Nice job gentlemen - you've taken something that is pretty cool and turned it into a pissing contest.

 

As I mentioned earlier, congratulations on the Albatross trackster.

post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Anyway, yes, like I said, it's for course rating purposes. But they don't just pull the distances an average scratch golfer hits the ball out of a hat. They have determined that the average scratch golfer needs two shots to reach a 470 yard hole. I.e., such a hole is at the high end of a scratch golfer's ability to reach in two. So if a less-than-scratch golfer plays that hole, it makes perfect sense for it to be a par 5.

 

It's off topic, but your understanding of course ratings, the "scratch golfer," and all of that is a little lacking. It's enough to matter in a conversation like this, but again, it's off topic. I will note that we have a 482-yard par four at Whispering Woods. It plays uphill slightly (#10).

 

 

If it's enough to matter in this conversation, then why is it off topic? And what about my statement above is incorrect? I'd genuinely like to know for my own edification.

 

So your par 4 is correctly marked, but trackster's par 5 is incorrectly marked. Ok, why?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Huh? The area from *where* to the hole? I've never heard of a transition area, please explain what that is and why it matters in this discussion, You can quibble about "center of the green" and "transition areas" (whatever that means) all you want, but in the end it doesn't change the length of the hole by more than a few yards.

 

If you don't know what transition areas are, it's clearly not your area of expertise, and I only responded initially to your comments because you said some things that weren't entirely accurate about course ratings, the "scratch golfer," and so on. Simply put, or boiled down, the "scratch golfer" argument does not support your position that it's a true par five, and thus, it doesn't support Trackster.

 

Again, instead of just saying "You're wrong" it would be nice if you'd explain why.  Otherwise, I think your understanding of my understanding may be what's lacking.

post #62 of 82
OT Stuff about Ratings (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

If it's enough to matter in this conversation, then why is it off topic?

 

Because it's off topic, and to be blunt, I don't have the time it would take to write up the things which took a fair amount of effort to understand. I'd have to share almost all I know about the entire course rating process, and it's not a short matter (nor on the topic of congratulating Trackster on his two). I could attempt to shortcut it, but again, it's OT, and so I'm not going to discuss it here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Again, instead of just saying "You're wrong" it would be nice if you'd explain why.  Otherwise, I think your understanding of my understanding may be what's lacking.

 

There's no need to be rude about it. I feel it's off topic (THAT topic would be "explain all you know about course ratings and how they're compiled) and would take a LOT of work to basically share almost all of what I know about how course ratings relate to par, how they're calculated, how the "average scratch golfer" is used, how the transitional areas affect the rating, etc.

 

To Trackster, again, congratulations on your 2 and for holing out from 140. I'd be pumped if I were you - I'm almost certain it tops my longest hole-out - and your team should have bought you a beer or three after the round. Great work!

 

P.S. The "frame of mind" argument is complete and utter crap IMO. Who cares if you're drunk - if you get a birdie, you got a birdie. I don't care if you're stoned, confused, sleepy, competing, showing off, goofing off, or playing left-handed.

 

P.P.S. Phil's in the penalty box for a few days on the "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything" principle. Sorry Trackster. I've not been paying as much attention as I perhaps should have. :P

post #63 of 82

You call my understanding lacking, I say the same thing to you, and *I'm* the one who's rude?

 

Ok, forget about all the course rating stuff. My point remains that the length of the hole (a length that makes it hard for most golfers to reach in two) makes it a legitimate par 5.

 

And as GolfingDad alluded to, if it's not a par 5, then what criteria are we supposed to be using to determine what par really is when the course mismarks it?

post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

You call my understanding lacking, I say the same thing to you, and *I'm* the one who's rude?

 

Seriously? You don't know what a transitional zone is. You don't seem to understand that a 470-yard hole would put the scratch golfer on the green, not 5 yards short. That's the very definition of "lacking understanding." It's not an insult - it's a simple statement of truth, just as "Erik lacks a detailed understanding of politics." I do. It's not bad, it's just true.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

My point remains that the length of the hole (a length that makes it hard for most golfers to reach in two) makes it a legitimate par 5.

 

Does your opinion change if the hole is only 440 yards? Would you count the fourth hole at Whispering Woods, if you played it from the gold tees (185 yards) as a par four as marked?

post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

You call my understanding lacking, I say the same thing to you, and *I'm* the one who's rude?

 

Seriously? You don't know what a transitional zone is. You don't seem to understand that a 470-yard hole would put the scratch golfer on the green, not 5 yards short. That's the very definition of "lacking understanding." It's not an insult - it's a simple statement of truth, just as "Erik lacks a detailed understanding of politics." I do. It's not bad, it's just true.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

My point remains that the length of the hole (a length that makes it hard for most golfers to reach in two) makes it a legitimate par 5.

 

Does your opinion change if the hole is only 440 yards? Would you count the fourth hole at Whispering Woods, if you played it from the gold tees (185 yards) as a par four as marked?

 

IMO you are misreading and/or misrepresenting my posts. I never said a scratch golfer would be 5 yards short on any hole. What I said was "If a scratch golfer is barely getting there [a 470 yard hole] in 2, then it's a legitimate par 5 for an 11 handicapper like Trackster."  I'm still waiting for anyone to explain what's incorrect or illogical about that statement.

 

The reason I used the USGA's definition of the scratch golfer as a benchmark for distance was to remind people that those are long distances. I understand that that's not really what a scratch golfer *is*, or the distances that any given scratch golfer regularly *hits*. But those are the numbers the USGA uses for rating. I even made sure to add the phrase "for course rating purposes".  I wasn't trying to use the USGA numbers to prove or disprove anything - I was just reminding people of those distances as something to consider when forming an opinion on Trackster's feat.

 

Then someone made mention of a "transition area" (not "zone", FWIW, which based on googling is apparently what it's really called) with an incomplete and nonsensical definition of it.  ("It goes from there to the hole" or something like that, with no reference to what the "there" is). So I asked them to explain further. You used that as a reason to call my "understanding of course ratings, the "scratch golfer," and all of that", lacking.  The fact is, my understanding of "transition area" was lacking, but not any of the things you mention. That's a simple statement of truth as well.  The funny thing is, whether something is true or not has no relation to how rude someone is or is not in saying it. Regardless, I took no tone with you that you hadn't already taken with me, So the "rude" accusation still strikes me as ironic.

 

Re your last paragraph, the hole is marked what it's marked. Anyone who's playing the gold tees is playing a par 4. It can be a short par 4 or a long par 4, depending on how those tees suit the golfer's distance and ability.  Similarly, regardless of whether Trackster was playing tees suited for him or not, he was playing a par 5. It may have been a short par 5 for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a 2 on a par 5.

post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

IMO you are misreading and/or misrepresenting my posts. I never said a scratch golfer would be 5 yards short on any hole. What I said was "If a scratch golfer is barely getting there [a 470 yard hole] in 2, then it's a legitimate par 5 for an 11 handicapper like Trackster." I'm still waiting for anyone to explain what's incorrect or illogical about that statement.

 

Because par is not determined by your handicap. Par doesn't change because your handicap goes up. It doesn't help matters that the hole is not even 450 yards from the tees he played.

 

Quote:
"Par" is the score that an expert player would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means expert play under ordinary weather conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green. Par is not a significant factor in either the USGA Handicap System or USGA Course Rating System. (See Section 16.)

 

Now, sometimes golf courses won't change the "par" for a hole because it causes a mess. Again, the 4th hole at Whispering Woods is a legitimate (though short) par four from the black and blue tees, probably even the whites. But from 185 from the gold tees, realistically it should be a par three. But two things hold them back from calling it a par three:

1) seniors play the gold tees, so it makes them feel good

2) it'd screw up the scorecards, tournaments played from different tees, etc. too much to make it worth the hassle, especially given #1

 

The proper rating for the hole, however, IS calculated into the course ratings, though, because that's where "what a scratch golfer would shoot" matters. The proper par for the gold tees on #4 at Whispering Woods is a par three.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

The reason I used the USGA's definition of the scratch golfer as a benchmark for distance was to remind people that those are long distances. I understand that that's not really what a scratch golfer *is*, or the distances that any given scratch golfer regularly *hits*. But those are the numbers the USGA uses for rating. I even made sure to add the phrase "for course rating purposes".  I wasn't trying to use the USGA numbers to prove or disprove anything - I was just reminding people of those distances as something to consider when forming an opinion on Trackster's feat.

 

But again, that's kind of what's used to determine par. Not the abilities of a bogey golfer, or a 9 index, or anyone else - just a scratch golfer. And I agree - it's a long distance. 440 yards is a good length hole…

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Re your last paragraph, the hole is marked what it's marked. Anyone who's playing the gold tees is playing a par 4. It can be a short par 4 or a long par 4, depending on how those tees suit the golfer's distance and ability.  Similarly, regardless of whether Trackster was playing tees suited for him or not, he was playing a par 5. It may have been a short par 5 for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a 2 on a par 5.

 

I disagree with you there (the bold part). Par is not determined by "the golfer's distance and ability."

 

BTW, how I voted is fairly obvious in the poll in the Locker Room.

post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

IMO you are misreading and/or misrepresenting my posts. I never said a scratch golfer would be 5 yards short on any hole. What I said was "If a scratch golfer is barely getting there [a 470 yard hole] in 2, then it's a legitimate par 5 for an 11 handicapper like Trackster." I'm still waiting for anyone to explain what's incorrect or illogical about that statement.

 

Because par is not determined by your handicap. Par doesn't change because your handicap goes up. It doesn't help matters that the hole is not even 450 yards from the tees he played.

 

 

Yep, and I'm not saying par is determined by handicap, I'm saying it's determined by the length of the hole (and other things obviously like hazards, trees, size of green, and all the other factors that go into course ratings.)  Which if I understand correctly you agree with, you just disagree that the length of this particular hole makes it a legitimate par 5, and that the hole may have been rated a par 5 from Trackster's tees only because from the back tees it's a par 5 and they don't want to change the par for the other tees. Fair enough.

 

I brought Trackster's handicap into it not to say it changes par, but to speak to the legitimacy aspect... in the same sense that pars had more meaning for me when I got them as a 30 HC than they do now as a 15.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Re your last paragraph, the hole is marked what it's marked. Anyone who's playing the gold tees is playing a par 4. It can be a short par 4 or a long par 4, depending on how those tees suit the golfer's distance and ability.  Similarly, regardless of whether Trackster was playing tees suited for him or not, he was playing a par 5. It may have been a short par 5 for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a 2 on a par 5.

 

I disagree with you there (the bold part). Par is not determined by "the golfer's distance and ability."

 

And I'm not saying par is determined by distance and ability.  I'm saying that any par 4 (or 3 or 5) can be a short par 4 (or 3 or 5) or a long par 4 (or 3 or 5), depending on distance and ability. So IMO Trackster played a short but legitimate par 5 and got an albatross. I don't think it's worth bragging about (as your poll is worded), because of the short distance and the fact that it was a scramble, but I do consider it a 2 on a par 5 (and it's a par 5 because that's what it says on the scorecard, regardless of how the hole is rated). That's all I really wanted to get across. I take it you *don't* think it legitimate because you feel the hole should be a par 4 from those tees. Again, fair enough.

post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 


BTW, how I voted is fairly obvious in the poll in the Locker Room.

 

You made a poll about this?  Omg give it a break.  It was an albatross.  I thought that the pissing contest would be over by now.

post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by trackster View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

BTW, how I voted is fairly obvious in the poll in the Locker Room.

 

You made a poll about this?  Omg give it a break.  It was an albatross.  I thought that the pissing contest would be over by now.

 

You gotta admit, it's an interesting topic given how varied opinions are. Just too bad for you you had to be the poster child.a1_smile.gif

post #70 of 82
At least the new title of the thread is more appropriate, given the responses.

An Albatross was a sea bird considered lucky to sailors in the early days of European oceanic exploration. If a sailor killed one, they had to carry it around their necks as punishment.
post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

Yep, and I'm not saying par is determined by handicap, I'm saying it's determined by the length of the hole (and other things obviously like hazards, trees, size of green, and all the other factors that go into course ratings.)  Which if I understand correctly you agree with, you just disagree that the length of this particular hole makes it a legitimate par 5, and that the hole may have been rated a par 5 from Trackster's tees only because from the back tees it's a par 5 and they don't want to change the par for the other tees. Fair enough.

 

Pretty much.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

I brought Trackster's handicap into it not to say it changes par, but to speak to the legitimacy aspect... in the same sense that pars had more meaning for me when I got them as a 30 HC than they do now as a 15.

 

I dunno. A score's a score, and par is par. I am reluctant to say more because I don't care that much. So I won't. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sacm3bill View Post

So IMO Trackster played a short but legitimate par 5 and got an albatross. I don't think it's worth bragging about (as your poll is worded), because of the short distance and the fact that it was a scramble, but I do consider it a 2 on a par 5 (and it's a par 5 because that's what it says on the scorecard, regardless of how the hole is rated). That's all I really wanted to get across. I take it you *don't* think it legitimate because you feel the hole should be a par 4 from those tees. Again, fair enough.

 

Kind of. We agree that it wouldn't be something we'd brag about (as did all but one person in the poll).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trackster View Post

You made a poll about this?  Omg give it a break.  It was an albatross.  I thought that the pissing contest would be over by now.

 

Yep. It's an interesting topic, as Bill said. The poll also had the information that the hole played 440 yards or so.

 

Here's the deal, trackster: it may behoove you to stop caring so much about what other people think. If you're proud of yourself, stay proud of yourself. Seriously, who gives a flying F what anyone online thinks of your 2? Congratulations. I said more than a few times it beats my longest hole-out (for any score), so well done.

post #72 of 82
I have a question. If "par is not determined by your handicap", what is it determined by?

What is used to decide if a hole is to short (or to long) to be "counted" as a par 5 (or 3 or 4)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › What is an Albatross? (OT Stuff from "First Albatross" Thread)