BushwoodCC

Gods of Howl Mountain by Taylor Brown

A strong mental game wont help 8 index player beat a scratch player using gross scores, and certainly a “hungover PGA player” can hit better shots than you or I. In that example, overrated. However, put that same 8 index with a strong mental game against the scratch in a net event - and I think the mental element certainly matters and cannot be overlooked. In this example, not overrated. Third example; Four golfers of equal skills, but one with strong mental element. In that situation, if you dont bet on him, its being underrated.

Will have to do that / sort of new here so I have not looked up anyone’s GG profile I meant from Amazon - sorry “kindle” is kind of my default response...

Just bought a copy on my kindle-looking forward to reading it.

It would demonstrate whether the people espousing a certain strategy are indeed practicing what they preach.

Please describe how you played the each of the par 5s in your latest round of golf. Example: 510 yards Drive: _______ yards in the fairway/rough Approach Shot: ______ yards with _____ club and it landed ________. Next shot: ________________ Score on the hole:______

So basically you are telling me that in an “opinion poll”, my opinion is wrong and yours is right. OK... Let me add this then, I will multiply my sample size to include all rounds I’ve played in the last two years, with all the partners and competitora I have witnessed personally. That will include people who are anywhere from a 12 index to a scratch. Over 95 percent of these par 5s were played with the player not attempting to hit the green with their 2nd shot. Maybe its because I dont play parkland courses with arrow straight par 5s... Maybe its because of the length of the par 5s on the courses... Maybe its the definition of a “lay up”.... Maybe its because the people I play with are playing for a score and realize that whaling their longest club into the water or over the green is too costly... But I am pretty sure that among all these holes, across all these people, they are not “wrong”. i think it comes down to something this- if you can reach the green (and hold it) 50 percent of the time, then the risk is worth it.... but if its a one in twenty chance that you can hit it 230 in the air and hold the green with that shot, you shouldn’t attempt it. PGA statistics are meaningless - because they know where their ball is going when they attempt to reach a par 5 in two, and they only attempt it if they can reach and hold the green. This seems like such common sense I cannot believe it is even a debate...

I used those two courses as an example. In the last 10 years, I have played more than 50 courses - playing from 6,000 yards to 6,800 yards. Most of those courses have been in the Southeast, where we have either water or terrain (rocks, creeks, gulleys, etc.) that is incorporated into the course. At 6,800 yards (a rarity but occasional), it's not an option for me - I am not that long off the tee. Based on those facts, going for the green in two is overrated. At 6,200 or less, it is an option for me as those Par 5's are in the 425 - 485 range - making them reachable in two. Of those instances (which are most often in a competitive event), I would guess that 1 of every 3 par 5's does not have greenside trouble (water or some other type of hazard) - which means that a shot struck 3W,5W, or hybrid is a logical choice 33% of the time on a reachable par 5 from among 50+ courses. Based on that (2/3 risky, 1/3 not that risky), I'd still consider it overrated. My "ratings" are highly dependent on what type game you are playing - I am basing my opinion on stroke play, in a competition. If you are playing Stableford or some other format (including a casual round), the ratings may be different as making an eagle could be worth the risk of hitting into a hazard. Final thought: I the approach is 200 or less to clear any hazard, or 215 or less to the front of the green, I would go for it all day. I suppose that is my real "decision point". Agree with your contention about getting close to the green - so maybe the difference is what constitutes a "layup".... Here is an example: 535 yard par 5. Your drive is 285, center of the fairway. 250 to the pin 240 to the front of the green 235 to clear hazard that protects 85% of the green - so you have a neck of land about 8 yards wide Are you : (1) firing a 3 wood, counting on hitting it either (a) 235 in the air, or (b) landing it on a 8 yard strip of land that is not the hazard? (2) Or are you hitting a hybrid 200 yards and leaving yourself a 50 yard pitch? If you chose 2, is that a "layup" or are you "getting as close to the green as you can"?

Have flirted with Callaway (love their FW woods and hybrids) and Titleist, but always seem to gravitate back to TaylorMade. I really wanted to love the Rogue driver, but the head was a little long from front to back for me.

Alabama Bear Bryant Hank Aaron Willie Mays Bo Jackson Don Hutson

Reaching Par 5s in two~ underrated. Trying to reach in two~ overrated. My club has two courses, with 9 par 5s on them. Of the 9, 7 have water green side, and all have water in play. We play tees at 6,500 yards and all of the par 5s are more than 510 yards. Based on those facts, the risk/ reward makes going for the green in two overrated.

I will respectfully suggest you start reading this thread at the beginning: - You referenced "government subsidies" in one of your posts - that is where that comment came from. - Other than playing on the GCAT, I have no affiliation. I don't work for them, and never have. - I do however know some Tour Directors, and know that they do these jobs to earn an income. I can assure they are not getting wealthy from this work, and can also assure they work a lot for what they make. On a one day event, they are at the course early and leave late. They take risks with their time and with the money they invest in running their tours. They commit to running 30+ events in a year and that means they are committing a weekend to the effort. - I provided, repeatedly, FACTS. I've played in the events, I know the costs, I know what the prize pools are, I know what the player welcome bags contain, I know how many people work at the events. - You have been repeatedly told your opinion is welcome and nobody is trying to change your mind. - You continue to express things that are not factual - and when confronted with facts, you don't want to acknowledge them. I can't say much more than that. I'm not trying to insult you or challenge your intellect - but I know what I have stated about the GCAT is factual.

What I sound like is someone who has FACTS (I know, it sucks when your argument gets destroyed by facts). Your comparison to a “5k hammer” is weak, and has no basis in this conversation. As I said initially and politely - your opinion is yours, and I have no desire to change that.... the GCAT isn’t for you.... we all heard that. However, when one makes statements that do not stand up when presented with facts, the decent thing to do is admit you are wrong. Otherwise, you continue to highlight the fact that you know nothing about the topic (the true cost of the event and where the money goes). Oh yeah, the GCAT doesn’t get any “government subsidies” like the associations you referenced earlier... #freemarketcapitalism y’all..... Peace out...

thisisgettingold 12 flights in a two day event: - prize pool is probably 25k for 12 flights of 15 - player welcome kit (usually a dozen premium balls, a shirt, etc) valued at lets say $50 - $9,000 - payroll costs for 15 people working tbe event (15*20 per hour * 24 hours) - $7,200 - lodging and meals for staff (15 *4 nights * 150 per day- 9,000 There is roughly 52k right there. Before anyone makes a nickel.

I guess you just need to not play GCAT events. If you don’t see the value, that is your call. Meanwhile, a ton of people nationwide don’t agree and are thankful for the opportunity. Comparing your experience running events to what the GCAT tour directors do is inaccurate. @iacas wife’s estimate is much closer to the truth - and given the time requirements and frequency of the events, many of these people treat this as a job. Nothing anyone says seems draw a picture of what goes into this that resonates with you. Let’s agree to disagree - I don’t think it is too expensive, and you do. Suggesting anyone is “lining their pockets” is comical. Also - let me know when your local association gets you on Sawgrass, Pinehurst, PGA West, Whistling Straits,etc...

If you don’t feel like it’s worth it, then it’s probably best you don’t play it. Im not the guy who asks a restaurant how much they paid for my steak. If I enjoy the experience, I come back. If I don’t, then I won’t return. Expecting a business to provide an accounting of how they spend their money to a customer is a bit over the top. The Tour Directors are “working” and they expect to get “paid’... just like you do when you go to work. It’s not intended to be a break even scenario...

6 flights - $300 per flight if 10 per flight, more or less depending on number of players in flight. Entry fees are set by Tour Director, and events are played prime time on weekends. Also includes range balls. Make sure it is an apples to apples comparison - maybe he is comparing weekday or twilight fees to prime time.

I can certainly comment, and no I don’t have a role with the GCAT. Here is an example breakdown, based on playing over ten years on the tour and having multiple discussions with tour directors: Entry Fee: 125 Greens Fee: 60 Prize Pool (includes trophy to flight winner) 30 Costs to Tour Director ( travel, labor, insurance, lodging) 10-15 Fee to GCAT: 5 Profit to Tour Director: 10-15 So in a 60 player event, the GC makes $300 and the Tour Director makes $600 for their work planning, setting up, executing, and taking down the event. Plus answering questions/emails/text messages from probably 150 players on their tour. The Tour Directors also work to staff the Majors (two day events at marquee locations like Pinehurst, Sawgrass, etc.) and the national championships. They don’t do this for free, and I do not expect them to. Hope this helps - but I’m glad to answer any questions.

Respectfully, you are incorrect. You do not understand how the AmTour local tours are run, and what the Tour Directors do.

For casual golf, I am indifferent. If it is to be applied, certainly applying it to the net score for the hole is the only rational method. I guess it depends on what changes we are willing to embrace for the sake of “pace of play” - that is the only logical reason I can see. For tournament golf, making a change like this to prevent people from becoming discouraged is the equivalent of a participation trophy. I play in flighted events on the GCAT, and have seen (more than once) a competitor cruising along with a great round (a few strokes over par, leading the flight) get wiped out by one tough hole. Last spring, my partner was +3 after 16 (leading by 4 strokes over 13 other people) and rang up a 12 on the par 5 17th. He finished 2 strokes off the lead. I can certainly see the argument for the other side in certain cases - but I guess we have to decide what “real golf” means.... maybe that definition is changing.

I suppose this question is a bit like asking how much is too much to pay for a car, house, etc.... it depends on the buyer. I have played on the GCAT for more than ten years, and greatly enjoy it. I can see, however, that the entry fees can be out of some folks price range. I do feel like the fees are generally worth the experience. Also, I don’t like that Golfweek has a maximum score on a hole.

Love this publication ~ highly recommended

Pretty cool image....

In my example both are creating a “hole” - one is simply a larger version of the other - but they are treated differently. I think that is why people ask the question...

Consider this: (1) player strikes the ball, creates divot, DOES NOT fill divot w sand. No relief. (2) maintenance staff creates similar “divot” (same depth, etc) only 25x larger. Paints white circle around it designating as GUR. See the difference? ( asking from a practical perspective, since OP was a poll as to what “should” be....