Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 9:27:45 GMT -5
thanks mate, trust me, thats the last time it will happen.
|
|
Breezee80
Weekend Golfer
Posts: 109
TGCT Name: Steve Cook
|
Post by Breezee80 on Jan 27, 2015 9:34:57 GMT -5
thanks mate, trust me, thats the last time it will happen. I doubt that. I think a few more wins are in your future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 9:36:26 GMT -5
thanks mate, trust me, thats the last time it will happen. I doubt that. I think a few more wins are in your future. hope you are right lol, but i didnt even make it a goal to get one win, i was just hoping for a handful of top 10's. but i can say this (coughdoyleycough) I have more pga wins than doyley! (until this week is over anyways)
|
|
|
Post by MrSourNinja on Jan 27, 2015 9:59:36 GMT -5
I would say 48ft is not a decent chance no. And if you actually got that many looks you must be a golfing God or something because while on the last course I probably had 10-12 eagles during tournament play I only had 2 this week. One was a holed flop shot on the first and the second was a mid iron into I think the 6th or 7th. I couldn't get a shot to give me a good look for eagle on any of the par 5s. Whether that be in my practice rounds or tournament play. 48ft is more than fair...... just play smarter and you will get better looks at the cup, but never say, just because you can't do it, that nobody can. Just because you can do it doesn't mean that most can. And that's what we should be going for, courses designed to fit the "average" on the PGA tour. Nobody designs par 3s at 300 yards just because 1 guy can get there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 10:06:29 GMT -5
was coyote not easy enough for you ninja?, were the par 5's not parable?
par is 72, what did you shoot again? i dont recall you being over par, do you play golf? do you understand what par means?
seriously, take a step outside and think about this a little bit, cause atm you are in here b%&ing and moaning how you are not good enough to EAGLE slightly difficult par 5's, they arnt even hard par 5's, but you are moaning cause you didnt eagle them. since when was anybody entitled to an eagle? let alone a birdie.
|
|
|
Post by MrSourNinja on Jan 27, 2015 10:20:30 GMT -5
was coyote not easy enough for you ninja?, were the par 5's not parable? par is 72, what did you shoot again? i dont recall you being over par, do you play golf? do you understand what par means? seriously, take a step outside and think about this a little bit, cause atm you are in here b%&ing and moaning how you are not good enough to EAGLE slightly difficult par 5's, they arnt even hard par 5's, but you are moaning cause you didnt eagle them. since when was anybody entitled to an eagle? let alone a birdie. First off yes I do play golf irl, and I'm actually not half bad but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you are coming in here and saying that I'm b%&ing and moaning about these par 5s when in reality it all started out with me asking the opinion of them. I have an opinion that you should be rewarded for hitting two quality shots appropriate distance into a par 5. I'd much prefer you make the greens more receptive and narrow the fairways, add more bunkers, create more sloping to the fairways. I don't care how you make it harder but having the greens be unreceptive to the point where if the average shot lands on with a 3iron it rolls either all the way off or down into a collection area 70ft away is not the way par 5s should be designed. And being close to par or not doesn't matter because we are talking about a game, a game where I can hit a near perfect shot almost everytime, giving me atleast a look at birdie on every hole. If you carry that over into par 5s then you should be getting a look at eagle pretty much every time. Your not going to change my OPINION on this. This is how I FEEL and I can feel whatever way I like. Agree to disagree?
|
|
|
Post by ProjectM4yhem23 on Jan 27, 2015 11:04:56 GMT -5
I think a well designed Par 5 is reachable in 2 but difficult to eagle....when going for the green you should have to hit a phenomenal shot to be near the pin, if you just reach the green wildly you should be punished, hence the whole risk v reward challenge. This week if you laid up you had an easy birdie if you went for it you had to be perfect to get close....I wasn't perfect but I still lag putted well enough to save birdie....came up one foot short of eagle on 16 had a 76 foot uphill putt w 15 ft of right to left break.....very well designed par 5s in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Crazycanuck1985 on Jan 27, 2015 11:48:19 GMT -5
My first crossover tourney! Went 61-63-64-64. If you were watching my twitch, you could see I was struggling with hitting the ball straight! Scrambled well, but lots of missed opportunities! Hoping to make the cut and finish middle of the pack.
|
|
Garno
Caddy
Posts: 31
TGCT Name: European Tour
|
Post by Garno on Jan 27, 2015 12:14:45 GMT -5
I quite enjoyed my first crossover event on the PGA Tour. I doubt 64-65 will make the cut, so I only played those 2 rounds. I loved the way the par 5s are set up on this course. They are very birdie-able with a layup and a wedge in, but a very precise 2nd could lead to an eagle chance.
|
|
|
Post by theclv24 on Jan 27, 2015 13:03:13 GMT -5
First off yes I do play golf irl, and I'm actually not half bad but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you are coming in here and saying that I'm b%&ing and moaning about these par 5s when in reality it all started out with me asking the opinion of them. I have an opinion that you should be rewarded for hitting two quality shots appropriate distance into a par 5. I'd much prefer you make the greens more receptive and narrow the fairways, add more bunkers, create more sloping to the fairways. I don't care how you make it harder but having the greens be unreceptive to the point where if the average shot lands on with a 3iron it rolls either all the way off or down into a collection area 70ft away is not the way par 5s should be designed. And being close to par or not doesn't matter because we are talking about a game, a game where I can hit a near perfect shot almost everytime, giving me atleast a look at birdie on every hole. If you carry that over into par 5s then you should be getting a look at eagle pretty much every time. Your not going to change my OPINION on this. This is how I FEEL and I can feel whatever way I like. Agree to disagree? Not to pile on, you are certainly entitled to hold the opinion that you do, but I find that your opinion would likely not be well-received by the golf architect community. A common feature of reachable par 5's is small or otherwise difficult greens. Look at 13 at Augusta, for example. Easily reachable for most players if you stay out of the woods, but a major two-tiered green. Land on the wrong tier and birdie is no guarantee. This is also evident when you look at controversial holes in majors where par 5's are converted to par 4's. Long par 4's are meant to have greens that receive long shots in, whereas short par 5's have greens that repel all but the best shots. Therefore, converted par 4's usually have greens that border on unfair even for the best players. Therefore, I think simply hitting a par 5 green in two does not warrant an easy look at eagle. It needs to be a perfect shot, and is called risk-reward for a reason. Sometimes the risk is too great, and laying up for an easy up and down is the best course of action.
|
|
|
Post by MrSourNinja on Jan 27, 2015 16:21:53 GMT -5
First off yes I do play golf irl, and I'm actually not half bad but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you are coming in here and saying that I'm b%&ing and moaning about these par 5s when in reality it all started out with me asking the opinion of them. I have an opinion that you should be rewarded for hitting two quality shots appropriate distance into a par 5. I'd much prefer you make the greens more receptive and narrow the fairways, add more bunkers, create more sloping to the fairways. I don't care how you make it harder but having the greens be unreceptive to the point where if the average shot lands on with a 3iron it rolls either all the way off or down into a collection area 70ft away is not the way par 5s should be designed. And being close to par or not doesn't matter because we are talking about a game, a game where I can hit a near perfect shot almost everytime, giving me atleast a look at birdie on every hole. If you carry that over into par 5s then you should be getting a look at eagle pretty much every time. Your not going to change my OPINION on this. This is how I FEEL and I can feel whatever way I like. Agree to disagree? Not to pile on, you are certainly entitled to hold the opinion that you do, but I find that your opinion would likely not be well-received by the golf architect community. A common feature of reachable par 5's is small or otherwise difficult greens. Look at 13 at Augusta, for example. Easily reachable for most players if you stay out of the woods, but a major two-tiered green. Land on the wrong tier and birdie is no guarantee. This is also evident when you look at controversial holes in majors where par 5's are converted to par 4's. Long par 4's are meant to have greens that receive long shots in, whereas short par 5's have greens that repel all but the best shots. Therefore, converted par 4's usually have greens that border on unfair even for the best players. Therefore, I think simply hitting a par 5 green in two does not warrant an easy look at eagle. It needs to be a perfect shot, and is called risk-reward for a reason. Sometimes the risk is too great, and laying up for an easy up and down is the best course of action. You provide many good points here. I can think of multiple greens irl that are reachable and accept balls very well (#2 at Firestone comes to mind) and while that is most likely still the outliers it does happen. Even so I think I'm going to have to go against the majority of the golf course architect community in this regard. It's just how I feel. I understand that short par 5's should repel all but the best shots but I think that is more for when you have irons in. If I'm hitting 3-5 wood I think the green should be receptive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:36:06 GMT -5
so now you are saying the greens did not hold your shots? no wonder you are mad, you must have been firing up bad shots.
I thought the reachable par 5's were fairly easy to hold.
|
|
|
Post by MrSourNinja on Jan 27, 2015 17:40:37 GMT -5
so now you are saying the greens did not hold your shots? no wonder you are mad, you must have been firing up bad shots. I thought the reachable par 5's were fairly easy to hold. I do not consider the ball rolling out 50+ feet after landing "holding". And I shot 50 under so obviously I wasn't throwing up bad shots. No need to call me mad either, we are just having a discussion. Don't start the hate here please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:45:30 GMT -5
so now you are saying the greens did not hold your shots? no wonder you are mad, you must have been firing up bad shots. I thought the reachable par 5's were fairly easy to hold. I do not consider the ball rolling out 50+ feet after landing "holding". And I shot 50 under so obviously I wasn't throwing up bad shots. No need to call me mad either, we are just having a discussion. Don't start the hate here please. i didnt call you bad, i know you shot well. you are the one who said the greens did not hold your ball, but then you come back and say they did, either they did or they didnt. if they didnt, you were indeed firing up bad shots, if they did, then no you just weren't hitting the best of shots. so you play golf in real life, i would hate to have you in my foursome on short par 5's where you are left 50+ feet from the cup after your 2nd shot, most guys would be happy and smiling that they reached, and there you go tossing things around mumbling and grumbling about how that green was unfair. lol.
|
|
|
Post by MrSourNinja on Jan 27, 2015 17:55:06 GMT -5
I do not consider the ball rolling out 50+ feet after landing "holding". And I shot 50 under so obviously I wasn't throwing up bad shots. No need to call me mad either, we are just having a discussion. Don't start the hate here please. i didnt call you bad, i know you shot well. you are the one who said the greens did not hold your ball, but then you come back and say they did, either they did or they didnt. if they didnt, you were indeed firing up bad shots, if they did, then no you just weren't hitting the best of shots. so you play golf in real life, i would hate to have you in my foursome on short par 5's where you are left 50+ feet from the cup after your 2nd shot, most guys would be happy and smiling that they reached, and there you go tossing things around mumbling and grumbling about how that green was unfair. lol. I didn't say you called me bad... And the par 5s didn't hold my approaches. The par 5s at the Humana did but the ones at the Phoenix did not. And just because they didn't hold doesn't mean it was a bad shot. It just wasn't the exact perfect shot required to hold these greens. Idk about you but I never had an iron into any of the par 5s this week. In real life if I hit a short par five in two I would be plenty okay with being 50ft away but this isn't real life.
|
|