News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


George Pazin

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2003, 05:42:20 PM »
Geoffrey -

I think David did a good job explaining himself, but it did take awhile for me to fully understand his opinion - I don't think I really realized what he was saying until he responded to Dan King's question of what if they called #12 a par 3.

The question I don't really feel was fully addressed was to top 10 inside, not top 100 outside - as I said half jokingly before, I don't think I'd be totally satisfied until I saw the rest of David's top 100 (to see if there are any other courses that could be considered less than exacting driving courses).

I don't think Tim's PV analogy was all that far off, especially when one considers the two respective goals (a private club designed to really test top golfers versus a public course designed to provide fun, interesting golf) & the fact that PV is usually considered the number 1 course in the world - that's not exactly an easy comparison for any course to live up to. Ditto comparing it to #2.

Contention on the site is almost always a two way street. I'd like to think my points above do an adequate job of answering your questions to me, but should you disagree, just ask more questions & I'll try to answer them - I won't get offended - to me, that's what a discussion board is all about.

For the record, I've never had the pleasure of meeting either David or Tim, but I'd bet that if they were sitting at the 19th, they'd be able to have this discussion without anyone getting personally offended. It'd be nice if that could happen more on the board & I think the best way to accomplish that is to not react personally when someone asks one to further explain himself. That's all I'm trying to say.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2003, 05:43:45 PM »
Geoff Childs,

One of the things that impressed me about Pacific Dunes was the challenge off the tee on every par 4 and par 5.

The risk/reward alternatives, the tactical signals to the eye are quite clear on every hole, with the possible exception of the 1st & 8th hole, the first time you play them.

Assume for a second that a golf course had identical green sites as Pacific Dunes, but virtually no challenge off the tee, no need for thought, decisions or tactical execution with regard to the lines of play and your driver.

How could anyone equate those two golf courses and place them in the same league ?

The absence of any challenge from the tee would seem to disqualify any course from a lofty ranking.

Ruthless objectivity is sometimes hard to come by, especially on this site.   ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2003, 05:53:21 PM »
Patrick's last post is actually a good example of how things sometimes go awry on this site.

He transposed the challenge/interest thing & then asked how anyone could equate the courses objectively.

I don't think anyone on this site is trying to equate Pac Dunes & RC.

As I read his post, even with the smiley, it is pretty easy to infer that he thinks anyone who defended RC on the other thead is not capable of being objective.

One can react in two ways - answer his question or not. Too many posters choose to not answer the question, but rather become petulant over having their views questioned. I'd rather see people accept questions at face value & answer them.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

GeoffreyC

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2003, 06:14:48 PM »
Patrick-  That's a good example. RC is (and I repeat) one of the best modern courses built in a while and a prime example of what public (or private) golf can and should aspire to be. PD, however, raises the pulse a bit more.

Another example would be to try to take the risk reward features of tee shots on a flat property like Garden City where the penalties are real and terrifying and equate them to another flat site also with width, Hidden Creek, where the risk/reward features are so subtle as to be almost meaningless. One get your attention while the other is almost "golf-lite".

George- you say "I don't think anyone on this site is trying to equate Pac Dunes & RC."  Of course they are.  What do you think all this talk of Top 100 modern lists is about? Its the basis of this thread which started with "We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2003, 06:22:31 PM »
George - I am going to try and back into answering your question.  I just checked the 2003 GW top 100.  I have been to 31 of them: Pacific, Whistling, Bandon, PDGC, Shadow, TGC, Cuscow, Ocean, BlackWolf, World PB, Harbor, Double, Arcadia, Mayacama, Cog, Victoria, Kapalua, Kingsley, Valhala, Flint Hills, Mauna K, SouthShore, Manele, Old Mem, PGA West, Belliere, Firestone, Troon, Barona, Quarry, World RM.  The only one that I would remove for RC is Firestone but before RC got the spot, I would give it to several others like The Palms, Sand Ridge, Cascata or National Golf Club of Kansas City.  For what it is worth, RC is in the best 100 modern that I have played but I have not played so many of the top 100 that I rate it against where I believe it should fall.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2003, 06:52:18 PM »
George Pazin,

I wasn't referencing Rustic Canyon.

I was providing an example of Pacific Dunes with another hypothetical golf course as an identical twin at the green sites and surrounds.

I thought the hypothetical example clearly presented the vast difference in two golf courses, identical in all aspects, except the area of the drive, thus highlighting the need for challenge(tactical signals, thought, decisions and execution) off the tee

I thought the hypothetical example reinforced the falaciousness of the opinion that challenge off the tee is not necessary in order to achieve greatness.

Can you think of a top 100 golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?

Can you think of a golden age golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?

Are ruthless objectivity and intellectual honesty the same thing ?   ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2003, 09:21:34 PM »
George Pazin:

Thanks for your kind comments. While Geoffrey Childs apparently believes all the questions have been answered, I still believe it doesn't make sense for a golf course to be considered Top Ten within sixty yards but out of the Top 100 based on the fact it doesn't provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee.

A big part of the problem is that people still haven't come to grips with the numbers. The fact is that tee shots by skilled golfers are such a small percent of all golf shots played that it is almost embarrassing that we, collectively, would give such shots much, if any, weight in our assessment of golf courses. Most telling is Pat Mucci’s recent post where he asks you to identify a Top 100 golf course “that doesn’t provide challenge off the tee”. What was Pat thinking when he deleted reference to “skilled” golfers? Why do so when that has been central to the entire debate? Then, too, I am surprised that Pat asked me to compare six inch putts to tee shots. What was the point of that? Did Pat mean to suggest that six inch putts are representative of what it is like to play golf shots “within sixty yards”?

Thanks also for seeing some sense in my reference to Pine Valley. Honestly, I don’t think I made the point very clearly, but believe Pine Valley does speak to the architect’s dilemma when trying to create tee shots that are interesting and challenging. At the heart of this problem is the wide range of playing ability between skilled and non skilled golfers. The differences in playing ability manifest themselves in many ways, but for the purpose of  this discussion let’s just focus on accuracy. Pine Valley was once described by Dan Jenkins as the “science fiction monster” of golf courses, but Jenkins also went on to say “despite the legend……there is lots of room in the fairways”.  That’s for good reason. Eliminating such room in order to seriously challenge the ability of skilled golfers to control tee shot dispersion would make the course unplayable for everyone else. Such a formula will never work. We should be very skeptical about the notion of "excessive width".

That’s the point I think the Rustic Canyon project team understood and why I believe relatively little weight should be given to challenging skilled players off the tee. Pine Valley as a private club might be able to discourage people without a certain level of ability from playing the course, but Rustic Canyon can’t. More to the point, the entire golf industry can’t. So, why give much weight challenging tee shots of skilled golfers?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

DMoriarty

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2003, 10:33:20 PM »
Tim Weiman , I disagree with you on this post.  First and foremost, if golfers are interested in minimizing their score, then tee shots are very important at Rustic and every other course.  Tee shots put you where you want to be, or where you dont.

Think of it as playing architect and routing your own course --creating your own par 3 for the next shot.  So no matter what your calculations say, I don't think it right to minimize the importance of tee shots.

Also, by the same logic, the tee shots are important, interesting, and challenging at Rustic.  At least if the golfer is trying to maximize his chances of scoring well.  Not all approaches are created equal.

Geoffrey,

You are correct that David W.'s opinion is certainly worthy of respect.  He has made his case, and expressed a view shared by many.  Especially those without much experience at the course.

However, while I understand how David could get the impression he did from Rustic, his opinion does raise at least two issues, one specific to his review of RC, and the other applicable to understanding strategic golf architecture.  Starting with the latter:

1.  When someone says a course has "great greens," "terrific green complexes," etc.  I assume that they are talking about more than just how the greens putt, or how easy/hard/interesting is to get up and down around them.  I assume that great greens provide the road map for all the different possible routes the hole can/should be played.  If a course lacks interest/challenge off the tee, then the greens are not doing there job, and therefore arent that great after all.  

So I wouldnt ask, "How can RC not be top 100 if it is top 10 from 60 yds in?"

Instead, I would ask, "How can a course be top 10 from 60 yards in if there is no challenge/interest off the tee?

2.  David's position is also questionable because his recollection of RC is very different than those who have played it quite a few more times than he.  Mainly, he greatly overestimates the ease of the driving game on RC 12.  He describes 12 as requiring a 265 yds shot from the back tees to clear all the trouble, and thinks that at worst if he misses right he will end up in a collection area to the right of the hole.  He has no recollection of the large  tree that sits directly in line between the black tee and the hole.  He guesses that in ten drives from the back tees he could hold the green four times, put it on the fringe 4 times and miss 20yds right.

This is just not an accurate description of the hole or how it plays.  

 I would give more credence to David W.'s opinion about the ease of the driving game at RC if he had said, "The driving game on RC 12 lacks interest because I can aim right of the trouble and green, then if I kill one I can get even or past the green in one, and then get up and down for my birdie."

inexplicably I had called Tim Weiman Tom MacWood so I changed this.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

David Wigler

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2003, 04:30:31 AM »
DaveM,

Interestingly enough, I said earlier that you have played it far more than I and certainly know it better.  Correct me then.  You admit that you suspect I will fly the green quite often.  How far is the carry if not 265?  I cannot be that far off, if I can fly the green.  I hit a high fade.  Is it impossible that the tree simply is not a factor for a high fade hitter?  Beyond that, we are back in the same circle again.  Tim returns my argument to "Challenge" and "Skilled golfer" while my point is that the tee shots are not interesting and anyone can bomb away.  Secondly, you put number 12 in a vacuum when I am referring to 12 of the 14 tee shots.  Even if I were wrong on 12 (Which I still do not believe I am) it would make 11 uninteresting tee balls and not change my point.

I agree with your first point about how a magical green sets up.  Unfortunately, a course that is so accessible from the tee does not allow these greens to perform their functions.  I suspect your wording of questioning my understanding of golf architecture is just poorly chosen.  If you truly believe what you wrote, then I think the question is reversed.  How could you understand golf architecture if you cannot separate good from bad?  I have seen horrible golf holes with phenomenal bunkers.  I have seen great driving holes with mediocre greens.  I have seen great courses with weak holes and weak courses with great holes.  How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to separate good from bad.  How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to look at a magical green complex like #1 at RC and not be able to say "Wow, if they put some framing and reference in the fairway and placed some demand off the tee, to require thought, this green would turn this into one of the best opening holes in California."  That is what a student of golf architecture does.  We have written posts ad nauseum about this exact point and how we analyze all facets of a course while we play.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

George Pazin

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2003, 05:35:38 AM »
Thanks David W - that helped clarify your points, to me at least.

The other point I forgot to make last night was that, much like the contentious Barona v. Apache Stronghold thread of a while back, I feel like I learned a lot on the recent skilled golfer/RC threads. I feel like a learned a lot about RC #12 & a lot about how David W views courses.

Thanks everyone - have a beer on me tonight.

Patrick -

I'd say the string of inference is pretty clear, but, if that's not what you intended, then that even better serves my point about not getting offended at other's questions & opinions.

As far as your other questions,

Can you think of a top 100 golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?

Can you think of a golden age golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?


You're asking the wrong guy - limited experience & even more limited skill.

It's a little hard for me to imagine a course that would be excellent from 60 yards in that wouldn't provide preferred landing areas off the tee, meaning that there is interest off the tee, but I look forward to seeing for myself someday (hopefully sooner rather than later).

Geoffrey -

I'm not real big on the ratings game - I'm a charter subscriber to Rich G's michelin golf course ratings guide - so I guess I don't really see that as equating the two golf courses. I'd say rather that it's simply a discussion analyzing how width may or may not provide sufficient interest to skilled golfers.

Regardless of how someone feels about David W or David M's points, I think it's good to see what people are thinking.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tim_Weiman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2003, 11:44:15 AM »
Dave Moriarty:

I’m not sure we do disagree.

Part of our challenge is to discuss golf courses in such a way that accommodates people who have played a specific course AND those that haven’t. People who have played a course MAY be qualified to discuss its specific features. Likewise, people who haven’t played the course MAY also be able to offer valuable perspective based on their broad exposure to golf or golf architecture.

Imagine we have two people discussing ABC golf course:

Joe is a long hitting, 2 handicap who plays many courses thanks to his job as a traveling salesman. Lenny is a 62 year, old teaching professional who never really did travel very much or see many of the world’s great courses, but he has been teaching golf for forty years.

Our friend Joe visits a course and concludes it isn’t very good. When asked why, he responds by saying the tee shots on too many holes are too easy. He cites #4 as an example. The hole he complains is only 320 yards and all the hazards can be cleared with a tee shot over 290 yards. “It was an easy birdie”, Joe says, “If I played it ten times, I’d make birdie almost every time”.

However, our friend Lenny comes to a completely different conclusion without even seeing the hole. His impression is that Joe may be a good golfer but not necessarily knowledgeable about golf or golf architecture. He points out that he has taught hundreds of students and that only a tiny percentage can clear hazards 290 yards off the tee. Lenny argues that if we want to judge the quality of this golf hole, we shouldn’t waste time talking about ten of Joe’s tee shots. Rather, we should take ten of his students – ten that are broadly representative of people playing the game – and see how the hole plays for them.

What Joe and Lenny demonstrate is that it is possible for two people to discuss a golf hole when only one has actually seen it. Moreover, the story demonstrates that the person who has seen the hole being discussed isn’t necessarily more qualified to discuss it. That person may be nothing more than a skilled golfer and not anything resembling a serious student of golf architecture.

Dave, in this entire discussion, you will notice I have never even attempted to discuss whether the holes at Rustic Canyon provide interest or challenge off the tee for either skilled or non skilled golfers. RC sounds like the kind of course that until you have played it many times, you probably aren’t qualified to say. It’s my hunch – just a hunch – that it is the kind of course that may fail to make the best first impression, but then steadily grows on a person the more times he plays it – perhaps the antithesis of so much modern design. We all know the story about Bobby Jones’ initial reaction to the Old Course. But, maybe we don’t all understand it.

So, I won’t judge whether Rustic Canyon “does not provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee” as David Wigler wrote. I will simply argue that even if this is true, so what? So, what if our friend Joe can make birdie nearly every time on #4 at ABC golf course? If ABC golf course really is “Top Ten within sixty yards”, it must be a golf course of such extraordinary character that it probably does belong within the Top 100 overall. I don’t know any other course that is Top Ten within sixty yards and not Top 100 material. I doubt Rustic Canyon is the first.

While tee shots by “skilled golfers” are a very small part of golf, “sixty yards and in” covers a lot of ground for all golfers: any shot that lands in, comes to rest in or is played from this zone. Thus, the importance of designing this part of golf course well is paramount. It far exceeds the importance of providing “enough challenge for skilled golfers off the tee”. Anyone who argues this point simply isn’t a very knowledgeable or serious student of golf architecture. More likely, it is a person like our friend Joe – a person who thinks about how HE plays the game and thinks THAT is golf.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2003, 11:58:46 AM »
Tim:

You're making a lot of implications in that post.  Forgive me if I am reading too much into it, but you really seem to imply that David Wigler - and maybe me - don't know jack about golf course architecture and only see how a course plays for our own games.  

That cannot be farther from the truth.

I know David Wigler and I know that you will not find many more serious students of golf course architecture.  Just because he uses himself as an example is meaningless... the man can hit the ball a long way, so he is a good example for the VERY narrow critique he has for Rustic Canyon.  But it's a LONG leap to say that's all he knows, cares about, sees when he assesses a golf course... an EXTREMELY long leap indeed, and one that's just plain not true.

As for myself, I've said many times I'm just imagining how the long hitters play - I'm sure as hell not one - so maybe this doesn't apply to me, but your Joe and Lenny example is hitting quite close to home.  I don't care as much about how you characterize me though, as I've said many times on here that I DON'T consider myself a student of golf course architecture - in fact I consider it a badge of honor that the playing of the game will always come first.

But you won't get away that easily characterizing my friend Mr. Wigler that way!

In any case, David and I have each said about 100 times now that CHALLENGE off the tee isn't the issue, but rather INTEREST is.  And we've also said it isn't just skilled golfers that this applies to, but ALL golfers.  Yet you still keep coming back to to your same tired point... can you PLEASE get over this?

I said it in another thread.  Challenge off the tee isn't necessary, although if it doesn't exist, other factors better make up for it.  INTEREST off the tee is required, or a course simply cannot be called "great."  This goes for all golfers, not just the "skilled."

Asked and answered... about 100 times now....

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

GeoffreyC

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2003, 12:01:00 PM »
Well Tim that post beats them all.  So David WIgler -Oh sorry I mean JOE is among the group of "Anyone who argues this/YOUR point simply isn’t a very knowledgeable or serious student of golf architecture. More likely, it is a person like our friend Joe – a person who thinks about how HE plays the game and thinks THAT is golf."

Tim- There are 17,000 courses that have been built since 1960.  To be included within the top 100 modern list you are among the best 0.58% !  Do the math.  That's highly elite company. As I said previously I DO PUT RC WITHIN THAT ELITE GROUP.  Howver, why can't you, someone who has not placed any emphasis on lists in the past, simply respect someone elses opinion rather then creating some silly analogy of your choosing to insult his knowledge of GCA?
 
 
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2003, 12:04:43 PM »
Thank you, GC. We seem to have come to the same conclusion about Tim's post!

TH

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Wigler

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2003, 12:49:47 PM »
Guys,

I gave up.  Tim continues to revert back to an old asked and answered argument because it helps make his point and refuses to remotely accept that any counterpoint could possibly have credibility (Without seeing the course).  We are not going to change his mind, so what is the point.

It is amazing how I am a brilliant student of architecture from 60 yards and my opinion is acceptable and taken at its word but clueless about architecture outside of 60 yards and basing my opinion solely on personal agenda.  It also amazed me that my opinion (This course falls just out of the top 100 due to lack of interest in the tee shots - but still falls within the top 1% of all courses in the US) is now characterized, as "It isn't very good."  Maybe the problem is that the course isn't very good from 60 yards in and I am truly unqualified to judge green complexes.
  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Tim_Weiman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2003, 01:08:54 PM »
Geoffrey Childs:

I respect your .58%. But, remember, to achieve Top Ten within sixty yards, one has to add another decimal point and get to .058% for an awfully large part of the golf course. My contention is that this part is so large, that the golf course couldn't possibly achieve that status and then not fall with the .58% overall.

In my opinion, thus far nobody has laid out a case to the contrary. Nobody else has laid out in a transparent manner how much emphasis SHOULD be given to whether a golf course presents "enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee".

I have argued that it should receive no more than about one percent weighting. The key factors are a) how few golfers are "skilled" and b) the small percentage of tee shots.
This X times Y gets me to the one percent range on a weighted average basis for all golfers.

This isn't personal. There are plenty of guys like Joe out there.

Why not simply focus on what weight SHOULD be given to the tee shots of the very limited population of "skilled" golfers?

If my one percent number is wrong, what IS the right number? And how do you calculate it?

Tom Huckaby:

You obviously don't like my story about Joe and Lenny. But, I think it is telling when a person judges a golf course by his own experience.

Why suggest what the results would be if you played a shot ten times? If you are making an assessment of course or hole or shot overall, isn't it better to think like Lenny? Wouldn't you be more inclined to listen to Lenny over Joe? Don't golf architects really have to think more like Lenny than Joe?

Anyway, I'm happy to see you think David Wigler, like our friend Joe, is a good example to provide a "very narrow critique".

I'm just waiting for you to explain how "narrow? Is my assertion that providing challenge - or interest - for skilled golfers off the tee worthy of more than about one percent of our assessment of golf course wrong? If so, can you lay out such a case? Can you tell me your numbers and how you get there?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Tim_Weiman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2003, 01:16:41 PM »
David Wigler:

Be fair. I accepted your assessment that Rustic Canyon is both Top Ten within sixty yards and that it simply doesn't provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee.

I just can't see how you or anyone else can give much weight to the latter.

Is providing enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee worth more than about one percent when doing an overall assesment of a golf course?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

GeoffreyC

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2003, 01:28:44 PM »
Tim-  If the course were among the top 2% in interest off the tee (pretty damn good wouldn't you say?) and you gave them equal weight then it falls outside the top 100 by a good margin.

However, that's hardly the point.  To me the point is that you are simply too stubborn or bigoted to simply respect another person's opinion.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2003, 01:32:05 PM »
Tim:

David Wigler can hit the ball a ton.  He is a useful example for being a player who can hit the ball a long way. That's it.

I NEVER made any assessments based on playing a shot ten times.  You have me confused with others.

I also never judged any golf course purely based on my own experience - hell I've only said about another hundred times here that I am only speculating on how the very skilled or very long off the tee would play Rustic!  

This is all getting pretty insulting, Tim.  That's ok.  Just pick the right targets with your insults, will you?  You have me all wrong.

At least you are FINALLY getting the difference between challenge and interest, or so it seems, given that you did challenge me to state my case re one or the other.  I choose the latter.

Interest off the tee remains very important.  I can't quantify exactly how important, sorry, numbers really aren't my thing.  But anyway, if the tee shots are BORING - now read that closely, I didn't say too easy or lacking in challenge - then the course better have a LOT in other areas to make up for this deficiency or it will never achieve greatness.  Tee shots are just a big part of the game - people tend to practice the driver a hell of a lot more than any other club - so tee shots are always going to be very important.  Make them just slam away boring affairs with no choices to be made, no penalties or rewards to be given, and that's just not as much fun as when these things are present.  I can't put it any simpler than that.

Rustic Canyon is a great golf course.  There, I said it.  It's not in the top 0.58%, but what the hell that isn't the bottom line for "great" in my book.  Its deficiencies off the tee - which really are very, very minor - that's what makes these discussions so silly - are made up for elsewhere in spades, mainly by the ingenious greens and green surrounds.

Re that course, that ought to be good enough.

That's my case.  You can choose to accept it or not.  It's really very, very simple.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

David Wigler

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2003, 01:32:05 PM »
Tim,

Do you read anyone elses post but your own?  The question is not "Challenge for the Skilled...", it is "Interest for any golfer".  Tom and I have redefined it as such 20+ times on four different threads.  I am sorry that change is inconvienient for you.  Yes, I consider interest off the tee way more than 1%.  A course that does not require thought off the tee cannot be in my top 100, no matter how good the green are (Exageration, I love CPC's greens so much that it could be a putt putt course and probably make my top 100).  It seems like most the treehouse agrees that having interesting tee shots is more than 1% important in evaluating golf courses.  I amazed you think differently.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

CHrisB

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2003, 01:43:22 PM »
Interesting discussion, but a question has popped into my head that I don't think has been asked yet, so...

Tim Weiman,
I'd be interested in your answer to this question:

In your opinion, if a course was top 10 material from 60 yards and in, what deficiencies would it have to have to take it out of the overall top 100?  Or is it a lock, so that all a course really needs is to be world-class from 60 and in?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #46 on: June 02, 2003, 01:53:01 PM »
David Wigler:

If you want to use the word "interest" in place of "challenge", go right ahead.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how much weight you would give to providing interest off the tee to "skilled" golfers". As such golfers represent such a small percent of the golfing population, I can't see how it would receive much weight.

What is you X times Y?

Geoffrey Childs:

Could you please explain how the following factors should be given equal weight:

a) Sixty yards and in for all golfers
b) Interesting tee shots for skilled golfers

If you are going to accuse me of being "stubborn", then I might just as well be so.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Ken_Cotner

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #47 on: June 02, 2003, 01:54:14 PM »

Quote
Tim Weiman,

I'm not prepared to agree with your thesis and contention that a 6 " putt equals a drive.

While the strokes count equally, the consequences of a missed 6" putt usually don't have the dramatic ripple effect of a missed drive.

Hence, they must be weighted differently in your formula.

Oh, man, I have to try and tweak Pat!  I contend the missed short putt has MORE consequence than the missed drive.  Why?  Well, a missed 6" (or 2-3 feet or whatever) ALWAYS costs the player one full stroke or more.  A missed drive, on average, likely costs less than a full stroke.  Sure, it can cost more than one, but I suspect the average is less.  Depends on the hole, obviously.

I don't think Tim's quantitative point holds water, though, precisely because the drive does affect the remaining shots.

KC, giving in to minutia (sic).  This has been a really good series of threads; both in content and tone.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Nuzzo

  • Total Karma: 12
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2003, 01:55:45 PM »
I played a course the "other" day.  It was simply the best course I ever played (top .000058%) in all aspects of playability.  Demanding tee shots, shot values, test every club, green sites, putting surfaces and conditioning.  The only problem ... it was not walkable.  Therefore it's not in my top 100.

The above was hypothetical.

If a course is missing something (in someones opinion) it can't be a top "x" course in their opinion.  Not mediocre, but missing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #49 on: June 02, 2003, 02:01:26 PM »
Tim:

The issue here isn't interest off the tee ONLY for skilled golfers, the issue is interest off the tee for ALL golfers.  A course that lacks this must make up for such in other areas to achieve greatness.

It is absolutely astounding that you keep missing this and keep re-asking the old tired question that everyone else gave up on days ago.

Mike Nuzzo's post is illuminating, also.  I suggest you read it and take it to heart.  Some things just can't be quantified numerically.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »