Complaints about Rustic Canyon's fans

[DMoriarty]

I apologize for trying to make my point using Shivas as an example because it really has nothing to do him.  I was simply trying to point out that it is easier to be honest about a course when future access is not at issue.

But come to think of it, if I recall correctly Shivas did have many less than positive things to say about NGLA before he played it.  So perhaps he is the exception to my general point.

Now back to the battle . . .

Shivas with regard to Rustic you have gone well beyond discussing width issues in a general sense.  If I recall you've taken rather strident positions regarding many individual holes and features, including the stategic strategic merits of Nos. 2, 5, 7 and others, all before playing.   Without checking, I'll bet that before you played it you had posted twice as many times on Rustic than Lynn Shackelford, who has played the course more than a few times.  

Understand that I dont think that this is necessarily a bad thing.  It is odd than someone who knows so little about a course would have so much to say, but then that is your perogative.  Just dont expect me and others to sit silently and accept your uninformed opinion at face value.  And dont try to pretend like you've stayed out of the fray on Rustic conversations.  

Asides . . .

-- There is no inconsistency in my position, I like golf courses with more options rather than less, especially where the site allows for them.   As for FH 18, I wont get into it here, except to say that I disagree.  

-- The absolutes to which I referr were the ones mentioned in your last post.   Nonetheless, I am certainly strident in what I like and dont like about architecture and am willing to back up and stick with my opinions as long as I support them.  I dont see this as a fault.  

--  I am terribly sorry but I have a previous engagement the day you plan to play Kemper . . . whatever day that might be.  

Note:  A few minutes after I posted a copied a paragraph over to another post, because it was in the wrong place.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  

note: a few changes made to this post to take out inaccurate and misleading information of an inflammatory nature.  Consistency was never my strong suit. See, once you start to change things, it gets all screwed up.  

[SL_Solow]

Talk about lack of options, the,only viable option at Jans National is to walk a few blocks and buy some wings at Buffalo Joe's which has a take out line which is about as wide as most of the fairways and often has more eye candy.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas wrote:

Again, Dave, you speak as if I actually HAVE an opinion.  I don't.  

No opinion?  It seemed to me that on the RC v WH thread, you had some fairly strong opinions.   Could you tell me which one of these are your opinions and which ones arent, so I can make some sense out of your posts?  

-- Rustic's greens are "'interesting' which is a nice way of saying they aint all world."
--   There is consensus that RC is not all world from tee to green.  
--  Kemper is better than Rustic tee to green, and pretty close to Rustic on the greens.
--  The concept of creativity being required at Rustic is a "bunch of hogwash."
--  Considering Rustic as a course which emphasizes "creativity" is lowering the bar, because the dilemnas at Rustic have obvious solutions.  
--  No need to be able to hit it high, low, cut, or draw at Rustic because they will all work out about the same.  
--  Kemper is better than Rustic, along with at least 2 other Chicago publics, with many others even or close behind.  
--  Rustic is overrated by its proponents.
--  Rustic is underrated by the masses.  
--  Rustic's reputation is based on being a big fish in a small pond.
--  Rustic is popular because it is in a big city with weak public golf.  
--  Rustic is popular because there aren't many courses like it.  
--  Rustic will not be considered a classic in 40 yrs.  
--  More courses like Rustic will be built, and when they are we will see that Rustic isn't even nearly the best of those similar courses.

This seems to me to be an awful lot of opinions for a guy who saw nine holes one time, and has no opinion.

By the way Shivas I disagree with everyone of these except for the better Chicago golf posts (no knowledge.)  As to the not "world class greens" comment,  Rustic's greens are without a doubt one of the better sets of greens I have played in America.  I lack the knowledge to comment on the rest of the world, or on the courses I haven't yet seen.

[DMoriarty]

By the way Shivas, don't give me any malarky about how I am taking your words out of context, and that you were just discussing conditions that day.  Your examples from that day were given to justify your claim that Kemper was better than Rustic.   No disclaimer about how it was only better than particular day and on that particular nine.  Just better.  

[DMoriarty]

While it had been lost in your Shivas shuffle, your post (with emphasis) brings us full circle, back to my original point:  Your opinions regarding Rustic are unsupportable, inaccurate, and/or premature, as are the opinions of many others.  Surely you understand that there is a difference between an informed opinion and a strong opinion.   Admitting you lack the former fails to negate your expression of the former.  

My questions remain unanswered:  

Why do you and so many others read so much animosity into responses and answers to your unaquainted opinions?  

Why do you and and others have such strong opinions regarding something about which you (admittedly) know so little?

Also Shivas, with which of the items in my list do you agree/ disagree?