JakaB (or what ever incarnation you happen to be channeling today),
First off, the object of your derision has never failed to break 85 when I have played with him . . . my money is on the Principal's Nose when you two Sumos square-off.
And with the exception of Ron Forse or DeVries, nobody I have ever met can pick apart the minute details of a golf course as quickly and completely as he can.
I'm glad to see you have found at least partial contrition for your remarks on the Pelican Hill thread - perhaps the holiday spirit has even penetrated the psyche of our resident reclusive eccentric.
Perhaps after the reformation, hard-working guys like your brother will get Pelican Hill projects instead of having them handed to Fazio or Jack.
It's a good thing we got a self-description too - especially because you are coming west. I could never have found you at baggage claim looking for a Richard Gere (hopefully sans gerbile).
BTW, because everybody knows the identity of you and your esteemed brother, why not just come out of the closet? You've been sitting in the corner of the Treehouse with a bag over your head for long enough.
Now, back to business: I continue to have a difficult time following your logic when you maintain someone cannot grasp the strategic content of a golf course when shooting over 85.
Personally, my scores from this year ranged from 65 to 89. The 89 at Kapalua Plantation (a bit windy) was only because a snap hook on the 18th hit a hazard stake and kicked back into the fairway. I shot 86 at Cypress Point too! Huckaby and Berhardt were there to see it. I shot 85 at Garden City with Patrick Mucci - including 2 absolute shanks.
Now, is that a reasonable measurement of my skill level? Of course not! But I guarantee you that I was able evaluate the strategies of those courses every bit as well on a miserable day as on a good one.
Sometimes being a really excellent player can work against you. Look at Jack Nicklaus. The insanity of his early designs can be blamed directly on his inability to grasp how the rest of us mortals play golf.
Even Todd Eckenrode makes mistakes. There is a green at Shadow Lakes than cannot be hit with more than an 8-iron. But for the vast majority - even from the regular tees - the shot requires at least a mid-iron.
When I asked him about it, he admitted that he visualized the shot from his perspective. Except Todd is about a plus-2.
Break 85 you say? How is an average golfer going to even break 90 consistently on a golf course that demands aerial approaches? Many modern designs leave only a tiny entrance between the greensite bunkers - barely enough room for two players walking abreast to enter the green.
You "allow" for one double-bogey a round? Get on the wrong side of the gun on some of those holes from the "Long and Penal" era, and double looks to be a good score.
BTW, the regular tees on Olympic's Lake Course are 6400 yards. That is 200 yards less than your revised length. Let's see your 12 handicap shoot 84 there the first time. I'll bet you dinner at Postrio . . . . . We can try it the next day at California CC too. That's about the same yardage. . . . . oh, so are the regular tees at Spyglass.
Your point should not be an indictment of golfers who lack your sterling
golf abilities, but of those architects who refuse (or lack the talent) to design holes with enough strategic flexibility to do what Macdonald did at NGLA.
Neither Tillie, Raynor or MacKenzie could break 85 consistently. Using your measuring stick, they were incapable of visualizing proper strategy.