The Matt Ward Scale

[TEPaul]

"Tom Doak:
Not hold on partner! I just get back from the northern plains and I have a thread with my name in it!!!!!
My "checklist" as you call it is quite simple and I believe I apply it to all types of courses whether they be yours, Tillinghasts or any other architect -- dead or alive."

Matt:

One of the wonderful things about GOLFCLUBATLAS.com is many of us, including you, can actually have a discussion with some really excellent architects such as Doak on here! Those discussions can even get very detailed and specific architecturally. Perhaps you might think about listening to what he's saying instead of just automatically defending some formulaic "checklist" mentality you have.

If we had the opportunity to discuss these kinds of things with Tillinghast, Ross or MacKenzie, would you also tell them that your way is probably better than their ideas?

Don't bother to answer that Matt---I think we know the answer!  

[DMoriarty]

His opinion is typical of a good player in assessing a course. After all, the player is the "end user."

Mr. Brauer,

With all due respect, this is one of the big lies of rating golf courses.  I agree that matt and the rest of the raters are rating courses for the player.  But his perspective as a "good player" is no aid to this aim.  Are good players additionally blessed with the clairvoyance to see into the bad players soul?   Are bad players dimwits with limited observational skills, trapped in their narrow world of lost balls and snowmen?  

If anything, a quality golf game is more hindrence than help to understanding quality design craftsmanship.   But then if you've worked with tour pros you may already know this.  

If we "celebrate" diversity in natural features and quirk in routing, ie differences in golf courses, shouldn't we also celebrate different ways of assessing courses?

We shouldn't celebrate either.   At least not just for the sake of some blind worship of diversity (no offense Reverend TomPaul.)  But diversity in natural features and quirk in routing often add to the pleasure of the golfer, and create the character and individuality of the course.  

In contrast, the 'good golfer' approach to assessing golf course has little to add to the pleasure of golf for many of us.  

I have similar disagreement that the notion one must play a course rather than view it to properly evaluate it.  We are humans and can understand and learn about things beyond our own experience.  

If matt wants to speak to himself and the few others that think like him, more power to him.  But when he tries to speak for the rest of us, he better put down the big stick and look around.  

Now before Matt hops in as does his 'Skipper' impression ("now waaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiit a minute Little Buddy, when I evaluate a course I observe the CRUMMY GOLFERS and take all of their interests into CONSIDERATION . . . and flawlessly so"), lets consider how Matt would react if a golfer of my abilities claimed to understand the persective of the looooong hitting good golfer:   "GILLIGAAAAAAAAAAN!!"

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Let's clear the air OK -- I speak my mind and say things that matter to me. Frankly, I could care less whether you agree with them or not. They are my opinions based on my actual observation in playing the course(s) in question.

I do take exception to people who think they can pronouce the merits or lack thereof of any course without having played it. Playing is where the "rubber meets the road" and often in my many visits I will have in tow a number of other associates who possess a wide range of golf skill (lack thereof) and from observing them and what I do I can better understand what the architect had intended.

David you said, "But when he tries to speak for the rest of us, he better put down the big stick and look around."

Hold on my quick talking amigo from the left coast -- I never presumed to speak for anyone but me. Please allow me to insert my own words into my mouth.

David, I went to Sutton Bay with an open mind to what I would encounter there. That's how I approach any course I visit. I don't go to a facility and if architect "X" did the design they get bonus points or they get points taken off. Sutton is an excellent one in a number of ways -- I simply believe that a routing of a layout needs to be more complex than what I find there. Routing for me is central to what a superior course is about because it's the way the architect maximizes all the unique features that the land provides. If others believe my elevation of what routing should be is in error please let me know what I'm missing.

TEPaul:

I never said my way is the only way. I simply offer my opinions -- no less than the high altar of golf expetise that you lob your daily comments from.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug,

In case it wasn't clear, I'm a huge fan of #6 at Ballybunion. It is a classic example of a hole that doesn't "look" impressive, but almost always plays very interesting.

I was merely responding to Jeff Brauer's suggestion that because I used the word "seen" I must be talking about seeing and not playing a golf course. To the contrary, I was merely identifying with those skeptical of the "checklist" mentality when it comes to evaluating golf courses/holes.

Tim,

I wasn't suggesting that you saw, but didn't play any particular course. I am suggesting that your language there and in other posts is hinting that your prime assessment criteria of greatness is visual more than play factors. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is probably my dominant thought process.  I'm a visual guy, too.

D Moriarity,

As a non-lplayer architect, I couldn't agree more.  MacKenzie is all the defense I need to justify being an architect, while not playing scatch golf.  Also, I agree that I can learn a lot about a course by walking and studying over playing.  Why limit my opinion to one shot that I may play in any given day as opposed to studying many shots from other players present on the course?

There is a notion out there, put forward mostly by tour pro designers that you have to have had worldwide competitive experience to really know the mind of the good player.  On the other hand, the success of my public courses shows that I understand those players, as well as good ones through my work with pros.  I don't know that a great (or formerly great - its well known that most of us in this biz don't play enough to maintain low handicaps) golf game hinders "quality design." It merely adds another perspective.  Some tour pros do understand average golfers very well, so your point of view, in my experience is somewhat sterotypical.....

I played off of Tom Doak's words in using Celebrate. I don't know why we wouldn't value, if thats a better word, diversity regarding architecture and opinions thereof.  Its the only sport with a non standard playing field, and personally, the more different courses are from each other, the better.

Lastly, speaking for Matt, I don't see where he is speaking for anyone other than himself.  And, he mentioned that he often rates courses while playing with 15 handicappers, and considers their tasks on the course.  Matt is entitled to his way of ranking.  The point of rankings is to get many raters of different opinions, and sort of average those together.  Statistical Probability will almost surely sort things out in the "right" order - although that again is subject to debate forever, and ever. Amen.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I do take exception to people who think they can pronouce the merits or lack thereof of any course without having played it. Playing is where the "rubber meets the road" and often in my many visits I will have in tow a number of other associates who possess a wide range of golf skill (lack thereof) and from observing them and what I do I can better understand what the architect had intended.

Matt,
Couldn't the same be said of someone that is playing; that they may not be seeing many of the key ingredients that could differentiate a GREAT course from a medicore one?

For instance, take me and the Valley Club of Monetcito.

I have turned down many the chance to play while at the Valley Club, instead choosing to look and study the course and its architecture. I have probably been on that course five times and never played it. However, I recently accepted an invitation to actually play there for the first time and while I both had a blast and played pretty damn good--while even figuring out some driving ills I have been having for sometime--I think I learned a lot more about the course by looking at the architecture on its own accord then involving my game and how I played the course. Don't get me wrong, I learned more on this last visit, but it was cemented by what I had learned about the course previously, and frankly, I think I can point out many of the key ingredients of what makes the Valley Club tick. Its a course that doesn't require GREAT play. Its a course that require you to feel great while you play, and thats an opinion I have always had about the course since the first time I actually saw it many years ago, before there was even a Golf Club Atlas!

I don't think you or anyone else should disregard the opinions of those that can either play while looking or look without playing. Its neither healthy for the soul or constructive for the art, and frankly it smacks of an arrogance which I think colors the outlook and acceptance of one's opinions for what they are worth.

Cheers

[TEPaul]

"no less than the high altar of golf expetise that you lob your daily comments from."

Matt:

Thank you--I appreciate that--at least you finally got someting right on here!  

[Dan Kelly]

A specific question for Matt (which you may have answered already; I'm just back from a vacation [no golf! none!], and I haven't read either all of this thread or all of the other one):

How would you have rerouted Sutton Bay? Would you have used the land where the par-3 course is? Would you have taken a sharp-downhill jog left down toward Lake Oahe, then a sharp-uphill jog back?

Let's make one assumption, OK? We want the course to be at least theoretically walkable from the 1st tee to the 18th green.

I know you can't answer the question in any detail, but whatever detail you can offer, I'll be interested in seeing.

[Andy Hughes]

I was just reading an article elsewhere, and it reminded me of Matt and the disagreements others have had with him re Sutton Bay and his 'checklist' and wind direction.
Article by Ron Whitten is
 right here
The relevant line was

Whether by design or coincidence, they routed all four par 3s and three of the four par 5s in different directions, always an architectural objective in order to pose varying wind situations. So it's a masterpiece that's a few steps up from raw minimalism.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

I have never professed to be an architect or in "having" all the answers. I do believe that I found it odd that land which is nearby to the clubhouse at Sutton Bay was prioritized for a short course and then one must trek no less than 1 1/2 miles to get to the first tee.

What's even more ironic is that the course provides a walking trail for those who want to walk Sutton Bay but once again you must ride out -- or hoof it -- to where the course starts in order to walk it. In addition, when you finish the main 18 you would either have to walk the 1 1/2 miles back to the clubhouse or have someone pick you up at the 18th green.

The facility has 5,000 acres to work with so I would think the option in using other routings could have been given serious consideration.

What's frustrating for me Dan is that having such a simplistic out and back design really deflates all of the extraordinary aspects of what makes Sutton Bay special. The routing should constantly keep the golfer off balance -- when you simply offer holes in a straight line going out and a straight line coming back (with the first two holes and last two holes being an exception) I question that ingredient and I believe it holds back what the layout does provide. This is particularly so when dealing with the strong wind currents that are a daily given when playing at most locations in the northern plains.

Let me also add that my giving the facility a "7" on the Doak scale is not chump change by any means. Few new courses that I have rated get that high a mark.

I don't believe that a different routing would have meant a slog up hills as you seem to imply, but it would likely require a bit more imagination. I mean when you play the first few holes on the front nine why could they not have taken a hole from the back nine and run that into the mixture so that the wind pattern would be varied for at least one hole instead of the continuing "straight line" manner they settled upon?

Dan -- routing is a major element for me when I review courses -- it falls just beind the quality of the land the course occupies. Routing speaks to an understanding that the ownership / architect have for the site in question. A superior routing maximizes all the unique aspects of the given property and at the same time mandates the highest level of superior shot values that the golfer must negotiate when playing.

Tommy:

You say I should not disregard the opinions of others -- fair enough. How bout they regard mine in the same manner?

Tommy -- all I said is that playing a course is the ultimate element where the "rubber meets the road." I don't doubt that personal observation without playing is helpful, but if one had to choose between playing a layout and offering an opinion versus not playing a course and offering an opinion I'll take the first one everytime. If others feel differently then by all means they should knock themselves out and simply "observe" courses without playing. If that floats their boat so be it.

I personally believe playing a course and observing the play of other folks of varying handicaps allows me to see a direct consequence of what the architecture is supposed to provide or fails to provide. You see sometimes what the architect "envisioned" and what actually takes place can be two very different things.  I observe very carefully the manner by which shots are played from the different people I play with and what type of rewards / penalties take place. I think there's a tendency for some people to think that I view a golf course only through the narrow lenses of my two eyes. That's not true by any means.

Tommy -- when you speak about "arrogance" how bout the fact that some here on GCA understand that I have played a very wide and rich sampling of courses throughout the globe. I just don't play courses in my backyard or simply make one major golf trip in a year. Tommy, I just didn't wake up yesterday and start playing this game. That doesn't make what I say infallible by any means. My opinions -- are simply that -- my opinions. I don't expect people to always agree with me -- or even ever agree with me -- and I certainly value their constructive opinions when they back it up with something beyond their couch potato comments. When I have been off in my assessment I have stated such a conclusion on GCA (e.g. the most noted example being The Bridge).
My experiences cover well over 1,000 courses. If what I just said is defined by others as "arrogance" then so be it. I learn from the comments of those who have no less the passion I have for this grand game and are willing to get out there "in the field" and then provide their viewpoints on what they have experienced. I hope we can learn from each other.

One last thing -- this so-called "checklist" that I have is something I have used for courses for quite some time. Like I said I assess in order the land a course occupies, the uniqueness of its routing and the manner by which it clarifies the kind of shot values it will take to maximize some sort of
success when playing. To be totally candid -- others have their own "checklist" or "scale" by which they rate courses. Tom Doak applied one in his book "Confidential Guide" and clearly others use such a formula as well. I se nothing wrong with that so long as the person can offer some rationale for the opinions he / she ultimately states.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

I'm really surprised that you suggest my criteria for evaluating golf holes is more "visual" than "how the hole plays". Isn't #6 at Ballybunion a perfect example of "how it plays" over "how it looks"........unless you happen to like the trailer park look?

Matt Ward:

I haven't been to Sutton Bay and I can't respond directly to your comments on the golf course. But, your post does serve as a reminder that we still haven't found a way to meaningfully explore the issue of routing in our GCA discussion.

Our interactive discussion beats the typical golf magazine advertising for golf courses, but I still suspect if one really has an interest in routing you have to spend some serious time on site with the architect. That's the only way to meaningfully explore all the routing options and understand why this or that option was accepted or rejected.

Too bad we can't do that here.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

One more time - I merely suggested that you may process information visually, as opposed to others who process it some other basic ways.  I know its a stretch to make that assumption based on a few words typed on the internet, but I got that from reading some physc books.

I'm not an expert on that, nor do I play one on TV.....

[Dan Kelly]

I don't believe that a different routing would have meant a slog up hills as you seem to imply, but it would likely require a bit more imagination. I mean when you play the first few holes on the front nine why could they not have taken a hole from the back nine and run that into the mixture so that the wind pattern would be varied for at least one hole instead of the continuing "straight line" manner they settled upon?

Matt --

Really, I wasn't *implying* anything! I was wondering what you had in mind -- specifically, how you would hit all points of the compass on that unusual sidehill site. So I asked. (By the way, I don't at all mind a couple of seriously uphill holes -- which surely needn't be "slogs.") Now, I guess I know what you had in mind:

You would be happier with Sutton Bay if Graham Marsh had built more or less the same 18 holes -- but had mixed some of the back-nine holes into the front nine, and vice versa, so that instead of upwind/upwind/upwind (or downwind, downwind, downwind; or left-to-right wind, left-to-right wind, left-to-right wind; or right-to-left wind, right-to-left-wind, right-to-left wind), one would face an upwind/downwind/upwind sequence. Fair enough; you might be right. That might've made Sutton Bay a better routing.

I wish we could hear from Graham Marsh about why he made the choices he made.

[Larry_Keltto]

Guys, Graham Marsh addresses the routing issues in some detail in Issue 7 of Golf Architecture, pages 13 and 14.

Of the "Matt Ward" routing, Marsh says that type of routing was his initial desire. He writes, "Whilst it was achievable, it didn't offer the most natural golf holes or the easiest of walks. Eventually I decided to abandon this approach and concentrate on one 18-hole loop. I quickly became excited with this concept, as historically, out and back courses have had a significant impact on the game itself."

He goes on to discuss the positives and negatives of this approach. He says that some days, one of the nines would be "desperately challenging." But he concludes: "I pondered this on many occasions then thought to myself, so what, isn't this an experience in itself?"

[Dan Kelly]

Thanks, Larry.

And I bought that magazine, too!

It arrived during some stupidly busy time -- and got put aside, unread.

I wonder where it is, in this magazine warehouse I fondly call "home."

[Steve_Lovett]

Not sure - but shouldn't raters evaluate based upon what is there at the golf course, taken at face value, as as opposed to second guessing based upon what "they might do" with holes or routing?

In many cases, I'm certain factors affect routing and creation of a project which a rater could have no awareness of.  If a routing is weak, it is weak based upon what it IS- not considered weak because someone might "think" it should be better.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but as a complete "rater outsider" what I hear sounds like the "Armchair Architect" approach to evaluation...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
Where does it say in any book, by anyone that one has to make ___ golf trips a year to understand golf architecture?

While I think that study of all forms is highly viable--including travel to places one has never seen or experienced, I could tell you a lot of guys that play far more courses then I ever have, yet seem to only really be into the art of Golf Architecture just for the sake of playing and talking a big game about it as well as describing thair length and distance from the tee.  It all makes for great conversation for which to fall asleep by.

These people don't read anything about the art, and they don't contribute anything to the art either. Its all just a big huge Bullshit session to pass the time away while at work. That's they're extent of the art and the passion. It makes great conversation at the water cooler--"Ho hum, playing Natonal this weekend......." or "I hit driver sand wedge into 12 of the 14 par 4's, I'm hitting it O.K. Not great, just O.K............"

But my post isn't so much a critique of your style, but a critique of the whole world we live in. That's the arrogance I speak of. Not your ability on how YOU judge golf courses, which is your right, its your opinion and your free and welcome to post that for the world to see. I don't have a problem with your tone-smacking with innuendo either, even though its filled with defense-ladden barbs attacking character and condition, in fact I don't care what you think because your thinking is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of mine about 80% of the time.

But your recent go around with Bill V. and Tall Grass is a perfect way to back-up my point. Bill was of a positive opinion about the course, and you certainly weren't granting him the same consolation you so wish from others--you want your opinion to stand in stone and  to be the end all; and frankly whether its the "third best on Long Island," just in back of of The Bridge or the second to last, right in front of Atlantic, there are going to be people that do like Tall Grass because its unique, fun, reasonably well-conditioned and has a great balance of golf holes that are routed uniquely on a piece of property that was once DEAD FLAT. Its also appealing to many classes and styles of golfers whch means to you that it doesn't offer enough challenge from the tee (usually meaning in Ward-speak at least 10 tee shots with a carry of over 235 yards from the tee to a fairway with only one distinct option to the green)

Personally, I don't think you could go out to Tall Grass and tell me what is real and created, or even the benefits of certain green complexes and how they work with the holes. You only know what YOU think is presentable to you for the Game you play, and the Game you claim to see others play. Nothing about deception or different types of shots one can play, Only braggadacio, "My travels today take me to the great state of Wisconsin or Wyoming or Bumfuck.............."

You certainly didn't recognize certain aspects of design at Rustic Canyon. In fact, when challenge was presented to you on an interesting and memorable bunker shot at the 4th, you declined and moved the ball to a much easier shot that accomodated your play--and that the difference between you and me when playing--I would take that challenge everytime.

But back to my point.....

I recently took a couple of golf course architects who shall remain nameless to the AFF Library in Los Angeles, benefactors of the Ralph Miller Golf Collection. In the full days I spent with both of them there on seperate occasions, I saw two very different individuals literally throw they're arms in the air and say to me basically the same thing--"I never knew this type of information existed." These are fairly well-traveled professionals, yet they saw their shortcomings and realized that the Art of Golf Architecture is a VAST, VAST field which even they are coming to realize the power of what reading and books can do for their study and profession and add to their future designs.

So how many trips have you made to the Ralph Miller Collection in the last year Matt? How about the USGA library? (Be careful now because Rand Jerris might be reading and he knows everyone that goes in there!) Even if its one, I can't help to think that if you have an open mind to it, the Matt Ward Scale becomes more efficient--more precise when determing that the best formula is to throw away the formulas and concentrate on what you know and what you don't know.

Those that concentrate on just the singular--"I know because............ " are futile, if not arrogant because they aren't even capable of seeing past their inabilities. Especially in Golf Architecture.

So frankly, I think your ascertations of having to make golf trips a year to be a bit propostrious, and frankly Matt, what would you do if you couldn't travel another day in your life ever again? Where then would you be? Would you still be into golf courses?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Not sure - but shouldn't raters evaluate based upon what is there at the golf course, taken at face value, as as opposed to second guessing based upon what "they might do" with holes or routing?

In many cases, I'm certain factors affect routing and creation of a project which a rater could have no awareness of.  If a routing is weak, it is weak based upon what it IS- not considered weak because someone might "think" it should be better.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but as a complete "rater outsider" what I hear sounds like the "Armchair Architect" approach to evaluation...

Well said Steve.

I'm of the opinion, and as Tim Weiman has stated above, that good discussion on how golf courses are routed is not discussed anywhere near at the length it deserves, and it shouldn't be so much about the critique of a routing, but the aspects of how and why.

I sort of touch on it above about the Valley Club of Montecito (I hate to have to use a GREAT course to talk of the point, so bear with me) There is genius in the way this course was routed. Its an odd site in regards to the modern day street that bisects the course into two very distinct parcels, and its even more amazing to see how MacKenzie utilized the two small knolls or hills, and how he literally has the holes polay of of them and around them.  He then ends the course on a BANG when you turn-a-round on the 18th and see the Pacific Ocean in the distance--nevermind the fact that each hole is not like any other-nor resembles any alike throughout the round.

The Matt Ward Scale would instantly point out that the downhill Par 5 opener of some 464 yards is just too short by today's standards, and that it follows with ANOTHER REACHABLE Par 5 that provides two excellent opportunites to score--IMAGINE THE HORROR OF THAT! WHY THIS COURSES ISN'T ANY GOOD! ITS TOO EASY! Never mind the fact that they are excellent match play holes (For which they were designed) and that the Maintenance Meld of the 1st green, 2nd tee & 13 green is one of the more interesting puttable features throughout the course and that the Valley Club of Montecito is one of the more interesting routings in the Game of Golf.

Much of it, you just don't a lot of from MOST of Today's more marketed, more commerciably successful golf architects.[/b]

[DMoriarty]

Matt and Jeff Brauer

David you said, "But when he tries to speak for the rest of us, he better put down the big stick and look around."

Hold on my quick talking amigo from the left coast -- I never presumed to speak for anyone but me. Please allow me to insert my own words into my mouth.

Fair enough.  In your own words then:

"P.S. Let me also point out for those who really don't know em that a generally play a fair share of the courses that I rate with a friend or two whose handicap is usually in the high teens. I observe quite closely how they play the course and what their comments are after the round is completed. Their style of play is 180 degrees different than mine. This inane notion that Ward only rates for Ward is quite silly and totally out-of-bounds."
-- From your initial response to Tom Doak, above.  My emphasis.

This is but the most recent example of this mantra.  You chant it every time evaluating courses comes up.  A little late to start denying you aren't attempting to speak for the rest of us.  

Further Matt, you are a rater and a golf writer.  Isn't it your job to try to look at the course from the perspective of a variety of golfers and rate accordingly?  Your magazine isnt only addressed to those still carrying 7 degree drivers, is it?  Don't you have a double responsibility to speak for all levels of golfers?

While we are on the topic.  Your approach is a double standard.  What makes you think you can understand the high handicappers perspective?  Isn't the point of your "rubber hits the road" cliche that the only way to really understand a course is to play it?  Havent you told me and others that we were not qualified to evaluate a course from the perspective of a golfer like you?  

Sounds like you think that better golfers are additionally blessed with the ability to see through the hack's eyes, while the hacker is incapable of seeing past his lost-ball-world.

You cant have it both ways.  

I wonder how MacKenzie discovered those great courses, given that he had yet to play them?

[tonyt]

Isn't the point that those guys spent 100's of man hours finding-out what was right. And then here comes a 5 hour visitor, to say they shoulda done something different, based on a formula? No additional suggestions on how it coulda been better or, on what the critic thinks should've been done. Which in this case (SB) was nothing.

Amen.

I can see a stack of similarly aligned par 3s or multiple holes of similar length being a factor. But I don't think they automatically have to be, and therefore I don't agree with the checklist being pulled out.

If an archie has two par 3s in the same direction, AND of similar length AND on the same nine, then there had better be some difference in playability, feel, concept or whatever that prevents them causing this weakness that people speak of that has caused the existence of the checklist in the first place. The quest for the archie then is not to make them point differently or make one longer than the other, but to make the holes different anyway he sees best. Surely variations in character that excite the golfer or add to the round are an ultimate goal. And if he pulls it off, then that is a plus and not a minus on any course's "checklist", regardless.

So no, I can't possibly believe this can be a valid means of evaluating every course. If it is done by the designer and becomes a glaring weakness in the round, THEN introduce this factor as a rater and mark the course down accordingly. But the course has to be tested first before these formulaic criteria can be deemed to be relevant.

Gosh, the chasm between my perception of the Americans' love of formula and what I know on my side of the Pacific shows that the hang ups and culture differences can be as vast as the distance.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

My good friend please enough of the barking -- you're the guy who has a major league hard-on against anything that contains the name of Tom Fazio. Ditto Rees Jones. Nothing like an open mind huh Tommy? I try to take a more progressive approach to golf courses and that is I judge them one-at-a-time and go from there. I don't hold some sort of "negative" against any architect unlike you with the two aforementioned people I just mentioned.

Tommy -- let's just say you see architecture in a particular and narrow viewpoint. By all means -- knock yourself out and hold to that opinion. Frankly, you don't care what I think and likely I won't be dying to play the courses you mentioned are classics.

Regarding Tallgrass let me say this. I played the course. Did you? I also have played all the public courses of stature on Long Island and Tallgrass didn't float my boat. If it floats your boat from just seeing it by eye that's wonderful -- next time go out and play the course and see if what you think from eye-balling it as the same as when you play shots. That would be a novel idea -- the thought of playing courses and seeing if what you see as "great" architecture bears out when playing shots on the various holes.

Tommy -- you're quick to cite that people can evaluate simply by looking at the course in question. Let me ask you this -- when you go to a restaurant do you simply make final and complete assessments of the food simply by looking at it on the dish? If you can do that you have some sort of God given talent few possess.

David M:

Once again you interject items I have either not said or you simply twist and insert for your own reasons.

I rate courses based on the totality of experiences for all golfers. I don't rate simply on my own game. I have said this over and over but for some reason your understandiing of the statement I just made either goes around your ears or you simply ignore it. So be it.

I understand higher handicappers by asking them questions on the course they have just played. I ask them a range of questions on whether the shot values they faced were wide ranging -- were they fair -- and did they have fun playing the course, etc, etc. I learn from listening and asking questions David. That's what a good reporter does and it does help illuminate for me what others go through when playing the same course I have just played.

David -- I speak for myself ... my opinions matter only to me
-- I could frankly care less what you think since if I say top you will invaraibly say botton. You are a great contrarian and I appreciate your style for what it's worth.

Enjoy the day ...

Steve Lovett:

I did rate what was there at Sutton Bay -- you need to re-read what I said. I also believed that a slight altering of the final routing would have added even more quality to what is there now. A seven on the Doak scale isn't handed out by me like candy on Halloween.

[DMoriarty]

Matt:  Yes I know that you think you rate courses  on the totality of experiences of all golfers.  

But I also know that this directly contradicts your notion that golfers must base their opinions on their own playing experiences.  Where the rubber meets the road, as you have said about 1300 too many times.    

So which is it?  

Why are you capable of understanding by observation and inquiry, but the rest of us are limited to direct experience?  

[George Pazin]

Why are you capable of understanding by observation and inquiry, but the rest of us are limited to direct experience?  

Now this is a wonderful question!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
I have such a hard-on for Tom Fazio and Rees Jones? Wasn't I the one that tried to get you on Shady Canyon because I thought you needed to see it? And weren't you the one that belittled the head pro and director of golf by calling him an underling when he declined you because he didn't like your schtick? All this coming from a Fazio course I do think is VERY good.

What about my suggestions to you about Santa Luz? That I thought it was a decent course although I didn't care for the bunkering?

Or did you forgot about that too?

BTW, Your food analogy-thing doesn't work either.

How do you know the chef isn't cooking with dog shit?

Unless you know what is going on, what it took to make or prepare the dish or meal, as well as see the presentation and how its laid out, you'll never really know the heart and soul that went into it, and frankly "amigo" that's one of the great things about fine dining and wine--and I'll tell you this I have the body and liver to prove my experience on the subject!

But Matt, If it tastes like dog shit, looks like dog shit, it must be dog shit correct?

Listen to your tone on Tall Grass.

Regarding Tallgrass let me say this. I played the course. Did you? I also have played all the public courses of stature on Long Island and Tallgrass didn't float my boat.

If this statement alone doesn't prove your arrogance--that, "MY OPINION IS SET IN STONE" routine where you instantly grade your opinion as the high-water mark of excellence in Golf Architecture, which you do everytime, then your not very open to reading into yourself, and if you can't read even yourself, how do you ever expect to read into golf courses or let alone read period? You seem to think I can't visualize what shots I could or would attempt on certain holes and whether I could pull them off, yet expect everyone to understand your style of play when describing the course you see on your many trips.

Does it really matter if I could pull these shots off or not, and if so would YOU even try, and if so, what key architectural features make these shots so fun?

This is why I think Tom Doak's original opening thread here is so appropriate. I don't think you understand at all in regards to what or where these guys get their ideas in routing golf courses, let alone decide what they are going to build and its all hindsight on your part in regards to what they should have have built or added to a golf hole. I'll describe to you my dislike for fairway containment and less then enthusiastic bunkering, even if its properly placed, but where do you describe those features and in what detail?

You'll also take note with me is in regards to Fazio and Rees, where in the past I have described in great detail, missed oppotunites, failed or horrible attempts at doing their job because they simply routed the course around two restroom sites and a clubhouse that fit in the grend scheme of housing tract that would eventually be built in the master plan. They tore up hillsides-shaved them flat--and planted native scrub to cover it all up. Yet, I simply say this--Is this what we are supposed to celebrate when it comes to GREAT golf architecture?

Well if you want to celebrate that, feel free. I'll stick with celebrating Friar's Head, Pacific Dunes, Rustic Canyon, Tall Grass, Apache Stronghold & Stonewall and even Inniscrone and the effort and heart and soul it went into building those special places and what they mean to the Game of Golf, not what they mean to Matt Ward.

Ask how many courses Tom Doak walked and didn't play that he included in The Confidential Guide, and while your at it, deride him for not playing them because he didn't, "take a taste." Personally Matt, I'll take his opinion on golf over yours anyday, 250 times over. You can also place Bill Coore and Gil Hanse names in there also.

[NAF]

I have to admit a shortcoming here.  I played with Tommy at the Valley Club last week.  Now Tommy knows I had a personal issue that day which hurt my play and kept my mind occupied but I can honestly say without him I would not have understood as much as I did about the course.  When we stood on the 1st tee until we finished at the 18th Tommy pointed out more architectual facets than I would have alone.  Has anyone seen Sister Wendy on PBS talking about Art?  That was Tommy at the Valley Club.  He spotted elements in the routing, camaflouged strategy and where there were harmonies between nature and the course. I don't think I would have been able to spot these on my own if I was just playing and focused on the game.  I think Tommy has some great eyes, just like Ran and others (Childs, Cirba, Turner) who I've played with on this site.  And sometimes that comes from walking and observing just like Yogi Berra said.  I think I have a good set of eyes as well but there is no substitute for taking the club out of the hand and going out there and letting yourself go without the playing mindset to understand the art.

Architecture is frozen music, Goethe said.  To really see golf architecture one must be able to understand the differences in designs just like lets say classical music.  Symphonies are different than a sonata or a sonatina or a concerto or serenade.  It is the same with designers-- a Ross is different than a Mackenzie or Tillie and we all know a C&C bears little resemblance to a Fazio.  I think some courses require more than play to really really defrost them and understand what makes the design tick.  And the VCM is like that.  When I wrote along with Russell Talley an article for Neil Crafter's Golf Architecture on St. Enodoc last year, we spent a ton of time on the course looking at it and inspecting Braid's work before we even played it.  I could have played the course 5 times and not understood it as much as when I observed it.  Observation gives you an ethos into some designs that I must humbly submit Matt has tremendous value.

[Michael Dugger]

We all have our opinions, but no one states them more matter-of-factly than Matt Ward.

It does come across as pompous from time to time, sorry but it's true.  

Just my "pot shot" from the peanut gallery

Keep at it!!  I need the comic relief guys