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

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by cda77

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?

If a Little League baseball player was batting .625, that would be great. It's when he's batting .125 and someone calls it .625 that would be a problem. And in the context of his age.

But when someone says "x shot x at age x", with no qualification it's different.

When someone says that Tiger Woods shot 71 at age 11 I'm assuming it was from regulation tees, not a couple of upturned buckets placed halfway down the fairway. I prefer to compare apples with apples. Clearly, some apples are a lot better than others, which is the point.

[clutchshot]

Umm... Pretty sure all golf is based off the appropriate tees for your skill level... A pro would laugh at your tee locations too. So yes, if your 6, 150 yards on a par 4 is respectable.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by clutchshot

Umm... Pretty sure all golf is based off the appropriate tees for your skill level... A pro would laugh at your tee locations too. So yes, if your 6, 150 yards on a par 4 is respectable.

I give up.

[jamo]

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what Shorty is saying here, or he's not explaining it well enough. He's not saying that kids (or even take "children" out of it, if you want) shouldn't play 150-yard holes, or that we should shame them for it. Just that for comparison's sake, it would be good to know that the great score was done an an atypical golf course. For example, when I was a kid playing Little League, we played on one field that had shorter fences than the rest. One year, my only home run came at that smaller field. I didn't go around talking about my "amazing moon-ball home run," because I knew it was at the small field, and might not have made it out of the bigger fields. I certainly didn't try to pass it out as a hit that would have cleared the green monster at Fenway. He's saying that if we're going to grade on a curve, we should at least all be aware that we're grading on a curve. I don't think he's trying to be mean-spirited here.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jamo

I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what Shorty is saying here, or he's not explaining it well enough. He's not saying that kids (or even take "children" out of it, if you want) shouldn't play 150-yard holes, or that we should shame them for it. Just that for comparison's sake, it would be good to know that the great score was done an an atypical golf course.

For example, when I was a kid playing Little League, we played on one field that had shorter fences than the rest. One year, my only home run came at that smaller field. I didn't go around talking about my "amazing moon-ball home run," because I knew it was at the small field, and might not have made it out of the bigger fields. I certainly didn't try to pass it out as a hit that would have cleared the green monster at Fenway.

He's saying that if we're going to grade on a curve, we should at least all be aware that we're grading on a curve.

I don't think he's trying to be mean-spirited here.

Yes, please read that.

My kid played in a scramble the other day with three other sucky kids. They used all but one of her shots (and only used the other girl's because they didn't have to walk as far to get to it). As a group they shot 27.

It was six holes, albeit from the actual red tees. The "pars" are 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4 and the holes were 175-235 yards or so, but still - if it was written up in the paper that she shot 27 at JC Martin, most people would assume that she played all nine holes (par 32) and not just six (par 21).

Similar thing. Hell, she might break par and shoot "-1" if they played the "pink tees" that they often let the worse 9 and 10 year olds play. But you and I would know she didn't really shoot "one under par." 20 would be really darn good for six holes of golf (hell, I'm not sure I'd better 20 - like most dinky courses the greens are tiny and yet tilted heck), but it wouldn't compare to someone even playing from the red tees. It'd be really good for a 10-year-old.

[Lihu]

I give up. :loco:

Please don't.

[jga226]

I played in a tournament here the other day. I shot a 73 on 18 holes. Everyone was proud of me for breaking 80. I was not too excited because the tees were moved forward a lot on the par 4 and par 5 holes. I think if we played from the blue tees I would have scored high 80s or low 90s. For me, the 73 is not a real score.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by jga226

I played in a tournament here the other day. I shot a 73 on 18 holes. Everyone was proud of me for breaking 80. I was not too excited because the tees were moved forward a lot on the par 4 and par 5 holes. I think if we played from the blue tees I would have scored high 80s or low 90s. For me, the 73 is not a real score.

Why not?  What if those par 4 and 5s were the distances at the blue tees?  What if they were the distances from the tips?  I was watching the Scottish open today and there was a par 4 337 yard hole that pros were reaching the green with irons.  Did the pros think that they should call it a par 3 because it can be reached with an iron?  I would think not.

Look up pebble beach golf course.  Hole #2 plays as a par 5 on normal days (Par 4 in the U.S. open).  From the gold tees (2nd farthest back) it plays 460 yards.  From the white tees (where 90% of players should play from) it plays at 428 yards.  So here we have it.  One of the greatest golf courses in the world has a par 5 that plays 460 from one tee and 423 from the tees that most people should play.  If some one drops a two on pebble beach #2 from the gold or white tees are we going to call it an eagle?  No.

[Nutter]

If everyone that kid's playing against is playing under the same guidelines I don't see an issue.  I mean, if some kid gets labeled as a "prodigy" by his loser dad I could care less.  IMO, kids that small should be playing those distances, it keeps them motivated.  I know I wouldn't have fun playing what felt like a 800 yard par 4.

[TJBam]

For what it's worth, I would be more able to appreciate a 95 from the forward tees from a 10 year old rather than trying to guess where the tee boxes were, teeing off from drop zone on par 3, etc.  It would obviously be easier for comparison to a grown male golfer.

That being said, of course they move these kids up!! Who wants to volunteer at an event where there would surely be 6-7 hour rounds from these kids setting up and hitting 4 separate approach shots from the tees.  Myself as a 10 year old I imagine would not be happy hearing "another double bogey, great job Sport."

Let me also say that I know many golfers that wouldn't be able to net +5 on 18 holes even if they started par 4's from the 150 and par 5's from 180.

Let the boys play!!

Edit: Now to respond to the OP's actual intent with regards to the media blurring the score: yes, it is entirely misleading for the media to report the kid as a prodigy etc.  But that's what the media is: sensationalism.  I agree that saying a 9 year old shot 73 on such and such golf course is ridiculous.  They should "asterisk" or preface the story with "from modified tee box locations giving little Junior a big bump, he managed to shoot XX on XX and win the X tournament in his age bracket.  Junior's course played to XX yards, compared to XX yards from the regulation tees."  But again that's a media issue and turns a (misleading) big hit story into basically reporting on the normal ongoings at a junior golf tournament

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Shorty

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.

Except you are not trying to have a philosophical discussion. You are stacking an argument to make your point. If you want to specifically discuss dumbing down achievements to keep kids happy then have that discussion. Complaining about a 10 year old playing a 3000 yard course and shooting a good score is a different argument.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by trackster

Why not?  What if those par 4 and 5s were the distances at the blue tees?  What if they were the distances from the tips?  I was watching the Scottish open today and there was a par 4 337 yard hole that pros were reaching the green with irons.  Did the pros think that they should call it a par 3 because it can be reached with an iron?  I would think not.

Look up pebble beach golf course.  Hole #2 plays as a par 5 on normal days (Par 4 in the U.S. open).  From the gold tees (2nd farthest back) it plays 460 yards.  From the white tees (where 90% of players should play from) it plays at 428 yards.  So here we have it.  One of the greatest golf courses in the world has a par 5 that plays 460 from one tee and 423 from the tees that most people should play.  If some one drops a two on pebble beach #2 from the gold or white tees are we going to call it an eagle?  No.

And yardages are not the sole determinant of the difficulty of a hole. I've not played PB but that hole may be uphill and play longer. 14 at PB is consistently one of the hardest Par 5's in golf. It plays 580 from the US Open tees which by modern standards is not extremely long but it's uphill and the green is tiny.

[Lihu]

If everyone that kid's playing against is playing under the same guidelines I don't see an issue.  I mean, if some kid gets labeled as a "prodigy" by his loser dad I could care less.  IMO, kids that small should be playing those distances, it keeps them motivated.  I know I wouldn't have fun playing what felt like a 800 yard par 4.

This weekend, my 15 year old nephew got his butt handed to him by a 7 year old kid. My nephew played from the blue tees, while the little kid played from the orange kids tees. Their coach was trying to play head games with my nephew and another 15 year old. The other 15 year old played a 13 year old girl. The boyis a 10 hc solid and the girl is a 2 hc from the ladies tees. He barely tied her. Even tough they played different tees, it was tough for them to swallow the defeat. I'm sure the coaches will play more head games wih them. I just need to get my nephew on the course more. Hope he gets over it, and can take more of these.

[indyvai]

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?

Did I catch a 9er in there?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

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.

You contradicted your own point.  Golf is set up to negotiate for abilities.  So when a person of a particular ability plays a hole at a designated par/distance that is NOT for their abilities, their score in relation to par is devalued.  I'm completely shocked that this basic, fundamental norm of golf is being circumvented/ignored all for the sake of giving a pat-on-the-back to a guy who got an "albatross" in a scramble event.

And let's remember that this wasn't simply a "forward tee."

[Valleygolfer]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

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.

You contradicted your own point.  Golf is set up to negotiate for abilities.  So when a person of a particular ability plays a hole at a designated par/distance that is NOT for their abilities, their score in relation to par is devalued.  I'm completely shocked that this basic, fundamental norm of golf is being circumvented/ignored all for the sake of giving a pat-on-the-back to a guy who got an "albatross" in a scramble event.

And let's remember that this wasn't simply a "forward tee."

I don't think that I contradicted my point. I stated that it was and that if we looked at juniors score as not legit we would have to do the same for anyone using forward tees IF we used that stance.

[AmazingWhacker]

I don't think there needs to be an astericks or a disclaimor because the holes were short.  If the holes are appropriate length for the players age, then it's a legit score.  On the other hand, if a 10 year old shot par from the tips . .then that fact should be highlighted.  That would be the difference between being a future scratch golfer . .of which there are many and nobody particularly cares . . .and being the "next Tiger Woods", lol.

[Zachari208]

Don't give up. I think the point is, there are no losers. And if that is the case, then there are no winners. For the sake of their emotions? "World needs plenty of bartenders!"