chasm

In golf, as in life, one is trying to achieve beauty. It's attainable momentarily, but not for an extended period. There are shots with which I'm absolutely satisfied, but rarely holes, and never rounds. How could it be otherwise?

Yes, I knew that. Anti-German jokes are endemic where I come from. But it's interesting. Kaymer gets called boring and robotic, when as far as I can see he's quite an amusing intelligent guy. If he were British or American, he'd be regarded as outstandingly inventive, as well as consistent. Langer isn't especially demonstrative, but on the course he plays pretty much every shot in the book.

Not to be picky, but "other than the fact that he's German ... he seems fine."? Is being German really sufficient to inspire dislike?

@Iacas , all that makes perfect sense. But, of course, it doesn't prove the case, becasue the case is unprovable. Back in the day, in the 1960 Rome Olympics 1500 metres, an Australian called Herb Elliott destroyed the field. He was massively superior to his contemporaries. But, of course, he was running much slower than the guys who break world records today, and the quality of his opposition was vastly inferior. But I still think he was the most talented middle-distance runner I have seen. I feel a bit the same about this debate. Elliott was as good as he needed to be. He was an amateur, there was no money in it, he had to work for a living. He trained hard, but nowhere near as hard or scientifically as do the professional runners today. He just trained hard enough - more than hard enough - to win, consistently. By the same token, I have absolutely no doubt that the golf Woods was playing in 2005 was much better than the golf Nicklaus was playing in 1970. I'm prepared to concede that even having taken account of the improvements in club and ball technology. But the question is, how good would Nicklaus, or Elliott, have been had they been faced with the level of competition that now applies. Some of us believe that their talent and determination would have made them more than competitive. After all, human evolution is slow. What has changed in the last half-century is not human potential, but opportunity. They'd simply have trained harder, and taken advantage of what is now available, and improved. Others disagree. We'll never know, but neither opinion is irrational.

Ah, right. Your memory is good, it's the 6th.

The Crail pic in your avatar looks as if it was taken from the 1st tee? Glad you enjoyed it. Even though I'm a Brit, these courses are very different from those I usually play. I imagine that to a Texan they must be like something from another planet.

But the European captain's problem is that very few of those from whom he will make his picks have been playing well. Who has "a good record all year long" who will not be selected automatically? Very few. Langer has played in 14 tournaments on the Senior Tour this year, plus tying for 8th place in the Masters. Not exactly a handful, and while the pressure may be less on the senior tour people are still playing to win. Anyway, since he recovered his ability to putt pressure hasn't usually been a problem, he's not a choker. I don't care, really, it's all a matter for debate. I just think they should pick the form players, irrespective of age, and he seems to be one of them.

Personally, I doubt if there is a single top player who plans their season with the aim of being in their best form for the Ryder Cup. So that isn't an argument against selecting Langer. And neither is the "slap in the face" for other players. If they aren't playing well enough they don't deserve to be selected, no matter how many tour events they've played. The question is whether Langer is playing better than the alternatives. I'd say he is.

You're welcome. No, I'm not big on pics - I generally find when I come home that I never look at them again, and to be honest, one pic of a fairway bunker looks much like another... All these clubs have websites, though, with pictues, diagrams of the course layouts, the usual stuff. So anyone who is tempted and wants more info should head there.

I have just spent a couple of weeks on a golfing trip in lowland Scotland, on either side of the Firth of Forth. My companions and I played some terrific courses, a few of them quite famous, a few less so. I thought a brief review might be useful to thise who might be planning, or dreaming of, golfing vacations in the future. [b]East Lothian: [/b]a short drive east of Edinburgh on the south bank of the Firth of Forth. Gullane #1 links course, 6583 yards off white tees, hosting Scottish Open next year. One of three courses at Gullane. Unusual for a links course in that it is decidedly hilly. A terrific golf course, with scarcely a single hole (with the possible exception of the first) that I'd describe as routine. Full of variety, with holes sloping steeply up and down, and very high on risk/reward holes. Must be an absolute beast when the wind is blowing. Probably my favourite course of the whole trip, highly recommended. Gullane #2 links course, 6385 off whites. Laid out by Willie Park jnr. Similar in character to Gullane #1, but to my mind a much less interesting track. Hard to put ones finger on exactly why, just seemed to play a bit more straightforwardly than its big brother. Still an excellent and unusual course. The barman in the visitors clubhouse at Gullane is a star. And the Old Clubhouse pub in the village serves great food and good beer. North Berwick . Links course, Open qualifier, 6140 off the blues. An excellent visitor experience, greeted at the clubhouse and very well received by the jovial starter who dispenses advice on how to play the first without making a fool of onesself. Very impressive, considering they get 10,000 visitors a year. In my opinion, the most difficult course we played. Taking driver often a mistake, and some of the approach shots incomprehensible. Impossible to hold the ball on the very fast greens, and bumping and running Often falls prey to the contours that guide the ball into the traps. Maybe I'd do better now I know the course a little, but I'm very glad the wind wasn't strong. Great experience, a quintessential links. Dunbar links course, about 6500 off whites. Loved this course. Not the most sophisticated in terms of facilities, and nowhere near as famous as Gullane or North Berwick, but a superb layout and absolutely beautiful. Felt fairer than North Berwick in that good shots rarely left one in trouble. Fife North of Edinburgh. St Andrews an easy drive from all the courses listed below. Ladybank . Parkland course, 6300 off blues, Open qualifier. Unusual for this trip in that it is a tight, heavily wooded, pan-flat parkland course. High premium on being straight, because a lot of the rough is heather and simply impossible. Very beautiful course, but for those travelling a great distance I wouldn't necessarily recommend it if only because itis probably more similar to what they are used to, and there are more idiosyncratic alternatives available. Elie . The Golf House Club, links course, 6273 yards. Simply gorgeous. The golf course is surrounded on two sides by the village and on the other by the sea. Quirky in the extreme. Men playing in shorts are required to wear long socks, which are available for purchase (funds to charity) in the starters hut. They are lurid colours, including a very fetching fluorescent orange. The first is a blind hole, and the starter advises those on the tee if the fairway is clear by using a forty-foot periscope from a WWII submarine. Two clubs use the course, one male, one female. The ladies' clubhouse is attached to, but separate from, the men's. None of this detracts from the fact that this is a superb golf course. Despite being almost 6300 yards, there are no par 5s. Some of the par 4s are pretty challenging. Great fun. Lundin Links. links course (doh), 6371 yards off whites. The best greens we came across on the trip, fast, but not ridiculously so, and rolled beautifully. Slightly confusing layout with a number of blind holes - I played to the wrong green once. Fortunately it was a par five and by the time I spotted my mistake I wasn't fatally off line. Another lovely golf course. In my opinion both this and Elie (above) are more interesting links courses than the Old Course, as well as being much cheaper. Crail - Balcombie Links . Links course, 5861 off whites, laid out by Old Tom Morris back in the day. Mainly of historical interest, as far as I am concerned. This must be almost as close as one can get to golf in its 19th century form. Old Tom was an ingenious old beggar, he crammed the maximum amount of golf course into the available space. As a result the course is very tight, with tees and greens very close together. Short, but far from easy. I scored worse here than anywhere except North Berwick. TL;DR version There's a hell of a lot of terrific golf courses around here. You won't be disappointed.

Personally I'd pick Langer in a heartbeat, the way he's playing. He's not that old, and he's certainly in better form than either Poulter or Westwood, for example. EDIT. FWIW, I'm several years older than him and have no problem playing 36 holes in a day on successive days. And unlike Bernhard, I don't have a caddy... or much talent.

Some do, of course. But rarely with strangers, and those who often post scores substantially below their handicap soon find it pretty difficult to find any takers.

What do you mean, not strange? The point of maintaining a handicap is to enable one to compete. Doing what you describe would enable the player to maintain a competitive advantage which he then deliberately voids by choosing to play badly in competition. Not strange?

Well, that's true. But it would be a strange sort of sandbagger who deliberately posted high scores in games that mean something, in order to maintain a high handicap for those that don't.

Not all. The main advantage of the Brit system of counting only competition scores is that if you fail to put in your card after a good round you're effectively disqualifying yourself from the competition. It's much more likely, over here, thatt a player will fail to put in his card after a bad round than a good one. .[quote]Tough for me to believe that a 15.1 handicap can shoot 3 adjusted strokes better than a 4.8? [/quote] Huh? Isn't that the whole point of the handicap system? As a high handicapper I am inconsistent. That usually works against me, but now and again I'll go significantly lower than my handicap. That's tough to do if you're off 4 or 5.

I'm trying to avoid slipping into a routine. Instead I try to focus each practice session on whatever it is I'm making a priority, and that will be different on different days. In particular, I'm trying to stay away from hitting the same club repeatedly. Today I was concentrating on swing path and going up and down the bag, hitting driver, five-wood, 7-iron and wedge in pretty much random order. I find it helps me to concentrate on setting up correctly every time if I avoid hitting the same club for successive shots.

The tradition here is that one buys a drink for whoever is in the bar at the end of the round. But since that can get expensive on busy days, it's usually modified. At my club the guy who makes the ace asks for a bottle of scotch to be put on the bar, and everyone who wants one helpsthemselves to a shot - or two. If he's a member, he then replaces the bottle (thus ensuring he doesn't have to pay over-the-bar prices) next time he comes in. It's a reasonable system. Bad luck on anyone present who doesn't like scotch, but hey - you can't have everything.

Thanks. That's quite clear.

So are you saying that a US player whose handicap is ten will get 11 or 12 shots if the course he is playing is more difficult than those on which the handicap was acquired? I didn't know that. And surely it would have the effect of doublng the advantage, given that the handicap is already taking account of the ratings of the courses played?

Shorty will have to answer for Australia, but in the UK, no, it isn't mainly stableford. I'd estimate that about two-thirds to three-quarters of my club's competitions are medal play.

Yes and no. Yes, it takes some skill. No, it is not OK golf to be shooting 90. OK golf, for me, would be to get round consistently in the low 80s. And when I can do that, I'll think that OK golf is to play to a handicap of five or six. It's a question of perspective, and of how focussed one is on improving. Most bogey golfers that I know resemble me in this respect - they par several holes every round then screw up their cards with a clutch of double and triple bogies. "OK golf", to me, would be eliminating those screw-ups so that a mistake cost only a single shot.

Yes, I buy that to some extent. However, because UK handicaps are mainly based on scores in competition, and because the CSS rather than the stated par figures are used to make adjustments, our handicaps too reflect how easily or difficult a course is playing. Having said that, I do take your point. We were playing some pretty tough links courses...

I played Gullane #1 and #2 last week. Gullane #1 is a great golf course, and they're toughening it up for the Scottish Open by eliminating a couple of the weaker holes and includinga couple of harder ones from #2 instead. However, I wouldn't regard it as hugely relevant to preparing for St Andrews. It's slightly untypical for a links course in that it is surprisingly hilly - some fairways slope very steeply either up or down. So while it is undeniably a links course, and a bit of a monster in the wind, it's very different in character from the Old Course.

i agree [quote]As for the OP - if someone thinks that 2 foot putts are gimmes and that it "saves time" not to putt out, I'd love to see them with an 18 inch sidehill putt with a good score going. :-) [/quote] Yes, speaking as a poor putter, if I was given every putt under three feet my handicap would drop a couple of strokes. I understand the points about handicaps representing one's current potential rather than one's average performance, but that's true over here, too. One gets cut twice as much for a sub-par score as one gets back for an over-par score, so one's handicap always tends to be close to one's best performances - one's best performances in competition, that is.

It is the club that is voting. In 2004 it devolved its responsibilities for governing the game to a group of companies collectively known as the R&A.; Don't worry about being confused, it's confusing.