Would You Rather…?

[Double Mocha Man]

49 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Ok. Very narrow gaps are bullshit trees are 80% air. That being said probably play safe. But in real life I’d probably hit a chip out in between the gap and shorten the 3rd shot.

But that's not how they present themselves to the golf ball, leaves and needles specifically.  Not talking trunks here.  To a flying golf ball they are about 80% obstruction. 

Think of the canopy in layers, vertical layers, running away from you.  I'd postulate that the average deciduous tree has 12-15 layers.  Each layer is, yes, 80% air.  But the open spots are not lined up... so you end up with mostly obstruction after you get past a layer or two.  I need a good analogy.

[chicub15]

On 10/9/2020 at 9:47 AM, StuM said:

Would you Rather #30 – Play it safe and hope to 1 putt for a personal best or gamble it all and play a high risk shot hoping to have a 2-putt for par to secure your personal best?

Assume you are on #18, a par 4, all you need is par to get a new personal best by 1 stroke.  You hit your drive into a dense cluster of trees @ 125 yards from the green.  You see a very narrow gap that, if you hit absolutely perfectly, you can be on the green putting for birdie or two-putt to save par and the personal best but if you have the slightest mishit you will hit a tree and ricochet to points unknown and most likely be getting bogey or worse.  Alternatively, you can play a safe shot sideways into the fairway leaving a 125 yard approach shot and hope to 1 putt for par to save the personal best.   Also, assume there is no money on the line, no club championship or league standing, only your personal satisfaction.

I'm absolutely going for it. Chipping out means wondering "what if" while going for it gives me a chance at a career round and at a minimum a good story to tell my dad.  

[BC-to-MI]

On 10/9/2020 at 10:47 AM, StuM said:

Would you Rather #30 – Play it safe and hope to 1 putt for a personal best or gamble it all and play a high risk shot hoping to have a 2-putt for par to secure your personal best?

Yeah, in this scenario where there is nothing on the line besides a score, I am definitely going for it. I'd much rather miss out on my personal best by two shots because I was going for it and doubled than miss out by one shot after playing it safe.

Beyond that, the chances of me getting up and down from 125 yards really aren't that great, so I may as well take on the risk to improve my chances of a par.

[Mr22putt]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:47 AM, StuM said:

Would you Rather #30 – Play it safe and hope to 1 putt for a personal best or gamble it all and play a high risk shot hoping to have a 2-putt for par to secure your personal best?

 

Difficult to reply without visualizing the gap....I do tend to be aggressive vs. hitting it out sideways.

[dagolfer18]

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

For me, I would rather be Mr. Consistent. If I constantly spit out scores in the low 70s, I’m a good man to have because my bad rounds would be just a couple over par, which doesn’t hurt too much. However, if I’m Mr. Erratic, I’m either a hero or a failure. I may go out and shoot 66, which puts us in or close to the leading team, then I’ll follow it up with a 78 or worse, which hurts.

[Double Mocha Man]

5 minutes ago, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

I was Mr. Consistent in college and now I am Mr. Erratic.  I would like to revisit my former self.

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

I've never been on a college golf team, or even high school, but I think Mr. Erratic might not get a lot of playing time.  If the coach can't depend on you to at least play "decent", why would he select you to play you at all?  I'd rather be Mr. Consistent.

[Double Mocha Man]

11 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I've never been on a college golf team, or even high school, but I think Mr. Erratic might not get a lot of playing time.  If the coach can't depend on you to at least play "decent", why would he select you to play you at all?  I'd rather be Mr. Consistent.

I think in a big match, like an NCAA Championship, the coach might want to roll the dice and go with Mr. Erratic to have a chance of winning.  Or of finishing last.  The "all-or-nothing approach" .

Edited October 21, 2020 by Double Mocha Man

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I think in a big match, like an NCAA Championship, the coach might want to roll the dice and go with Mr. Erratic to have a chance of winning.  Or of finishing last.  The "all-or-nothing approach" .

It certainly could depend on the format.  If you need 4 scores from 5 players, for instance, maybe you could take a flyer on one guy like that.  If its match play, maybe you can take a risk on losing just one match really quickly.  But if you put out 6 players needing 6 scores, do you take the chance that one player's poor day kills the entire team's chances?  I'd still take solid and steady in most circumstances, I'd still prefer to BE Mr. Consistent.

[dennyjones]

1 hour ago, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

I believe I'd echo what @DaveP043 stated.  I'd personally prefer to be Mr. Consistent but it looks like Mr. Erratic may have more potential down the road.   

[WillieT]

2 hours ago, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

This one reminds me of a story I heard many years ago, I believe it was related to Lee Trevino's qualifying for the Tour.  It seems he was all over the course, i.e. Mr Erratic, whereas his partner was straight down the middle, Mr Consistent.  I recall the author telling the story that we all got to see Lee play on the Tour while the other guy never did. So what is my answer, I am going with Mr Erratic as one thing is certain, the rounds will never be "boring golf"!  Yes, NCAA titles are nice but do we prefer to see boring rounds or watching the elite players having to scramble, therefore justifying our scrambling.  

[StuM]

11 hours ago, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

For me, I would rather be Mr. Consistent. If I constantly spit out scores in the low 70s, I’m a good man to have because my bad rounds would be just a couple over par, which doesn’t hurt too much. However, if I’m Mr. Erratic, I’m either a hero or a failure. I may go out and shoot 66, which puts us in or close to the leading team, then I’ll follow it up with a 78 or worse, which hurts.

I have been Mr. Erratic for too long and it sucks when that crap round comes out,  knowing you could shoot so much better.  I’ll take Mr Consistent.  I would still have the hope of getting a great round.

[onthehunt526]

12 hours ago, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

Mr. Consistent. Boring average 15 pars a round kind of guy. Oh wait I already do that. I think that someone who plays “consistent” as you call it or “boring” as I call it. In the long run, would just need to get hot with the putter for a tournament to go low, and even if they didn’t they’re still shooting between 70-74, with average putting.

[Vinsk]

22 hours ago, dagolfer18 said:

 

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

 

 

Mr. Consistent. Just ask Charle Schwartzel.

[bkuehn1952]

22 hours ago, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

Mr. Consistent for all the many good reasons cited by previous posters.

Long ago, when it became time to select the Ryder Cup team, there was a faction of fans who wanted the Captain to pick John Daly.  He was never selected, both because his point totals were never near enough to the last qualifier but also because he was too erratic.  He was also a player who might not grind if things were not going his way.  I have played many times with talented but erratic players.  One common trait shared by many of them is the tendency to not keep grinding and try to turn an 82 into a 78. 

[boogielicious]

On 10/21/2020 at 10:33 AM, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

For me, I would rather be Mr. Consistent. If I constantly spit out scores in the low 70s, I’m a good man to have because my bad rounds would be just a couple over par, which doesn’t hurt too much. However, if I’m Mr. Erratic, I’m either a hero or a failure. I may go out and shoot 66, which puts us in or close to the leading team, then I’ll follow it up with a 78 or worse, which hurts.

Mr Consistent. 

[Bonvivant]

On 10/9/2020 at 10:47 AM, StuM said:

Would you Rather #30 – Play it safe and hope to 1 putt for a personal best or gamble it all and play a high risk shot hoping to have a 2-putt for par to secure your personal best?

Going for it all day. The probability of me hitting the green from 125 yards is probably 50% or so, so playing it safe, I would have to drain a longish putt or chip in. If I get it greenside or on the green with the risky shot, my chances of making par aren't nearly as bad, and a record round is worth the risk.

On 10/21/2020 at 10:33 AM, dagolfer18 said:

WOULD YOU RATHER #31: 

Assume you are playing golf for the college team of your choice. Would you rather be Mr. Erratic (i.e you have a 50-50 shot between 60s or high 70s or worse) or Mr. Consistent (you usually shoot around par, with occasional sub-70 rounds)?

Mr. Consistent. Low event seems just fine by me, as someone whos scores vary from high 80s to well over 100 sometimes.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Bonvivant

[ChetlovesMer]

WOULD YOU RATHER #32: 

Would you rather see the same guy win 10 of the next 16 majors.

OR

Would you rather see each of the next 16 majors won by a first time major champion?