Accurate opinions of holes or courses you have never played...

[JESII]

John K,

Very interesting question, I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to answer before Tom D. I would have said your opinion would carry more weight if that conversation came about.

Tom D,

In your opinion, is a member able to give objective analysis of his home course without getting into opinions of quality?

Am I slicing atoms again?

Could you provide an objective view of one of your courses in a manner that allows me to understand the nuts and bolts of the course without develping any preconcieved notions of its quality? I'm not asking you to do so, rather wondering if you (or anyone on here) think it's possible to separate analysis from preferrence.

[John Kavanaugh]

John:

There is no question that you know Victoria National way better than I do.  [It was open when I toured it, but they did not invite me to play, and I didn't ask.]

However, since you ponied up a lot of $ to join it before you'd played any of those rounds, one could also assume that you are predisposed toward liking the design to prove that you weren't an idiot in joining to begin with.

No member's opinion of his home course is without bias, any more than any architect's opinion of one of his designs.  However, in both cases, we do have more facts to go on than the punters who play once and slice into the trees and tell us that hole sucks!

P.S.  That is my normal procedure for whether I play a new course I've gone to see ... whether or not I'm invited to play.  So, are you saying I should never comment on the clubs which are too stuck up to invite me to play?  

I had played VN before I joined there.  Honestly, considering 90% of the typical architectural questions posed on this site I would value your opinion of VN, in that context, more than mine (if I was not me of course)...This is the second time you have lied to me today.

[John Kavanaugh]

The problem is, you seem to adopt this approach whether or not you have much accurate information about the hole/course in question.  To see the fallacy of this approach, one need only take a look at how often you are wrong.  

For example, take your recent thread on what you perceived to be the unoriginality and excessive stylistic repetition of Doak's courses.  You based your perceptions on viewing a few photographs, and in that case the photographs did not provide you with nearly enough information to form or support a reasonable opinion.   Had you actually seen the courses, you might (or might not have) found stylistic repetition, but chances are your opinion (and ability to support it) would have been much different than your initial innaccurate impression.  

 

Both Tom Doak and John Kirk went on to agree with me on that topic...Many others argued it is not even a bad thing.  The degree of consistency of style is the only thing I may have been wrong about and that really is only a matter of taste and/or opinion.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Sorry to "lie" to you; I thought your earlier post was referring to VN as one of the two clubs you'd joined without playing.  I had no idea you were more prolific than that.  Thank you for supporting golf architecture!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have never felt that I need to play a course to have a valid opinion that would be worthy of sharing with my friends.  

As an obvious example I don't need to play the 12th at Augusta to understand the subtle nuances of the shot.  

YES, you do.

Your opinion is flawed because it's limited to a data base comprised of a limited number of camera angles, none of which bear resemblance to the view from the golfers eyes as they walk down # 11 fairway, back up to # 12 tee, on # 12 tee, and as they walk to and around # 12 green.

You can't feel the wind, you can't feel the change in direction and velocity of the wind.  You can't acquire the inner feelings and fears that the shot presents vis a vis the golfer's eyes'.
[/color]

I can sit here right now and imagine either coming out of the shot and dumping it short right in the water or over compensating and hitting it long left...I could hit the shot a million times and not know any more or less about the architecture than I know now.

That may speak more to your powers of observation and lack of intellect.   [/color]

I know the tree removal at Oakmont opened up the course and made it a course I enjoy more without ever having seen it before or after..

As a more obscure example...The 18th at The Old Course is a more interesting finisher than the 18th at Sebonack considering they both seem to be cut off the easy finish model..

How can you possibly say that ?

And, how can you say that # 18 at TOC is an interesting finisher ?

What's interesting about it ?[/color]

Why aren't these opinions valid and what others might you have...the more obscure the better..

Because they're not based on reliable data.

They have no substance or basis in fact.

It's an absurd theory.[/color]

[Sean_A]

Patrick

You have been taking exaggeration lessons from Rich.    

Everybody's opinion is flawed, that is one of the reasons why opinions aren't called facts.

Why is the viewing golf courses on tv unreliable and without basis in fact?

Are you one of these guys that still believes we didn't put a man on the moon?

Ciao

Sean

[George Pazin]

Everybody's opinion is flawed, that is one of the reasons why opinions aren't called facts.

Damn, if I didn't like Pat Brockwell's quote so much, this would be my new tag line.

Anyway, I think the best way to learn about a hole is to sit and watch multiple groups go through during a tournament. You see how people play a hole under pressure, you see multiple ways of playing a hole, you see a multitude of recovery shots. Really, would I, as a 20+ handicap, learn more from playing the hole even once?

P.S. My handicap is going down next year! I discovered this thing called practice. Couple that with lessons, and it's a combination more powerful than any Golf Channel infomercial.

[Matt_Ward]

John K:

There's nothing that can top the actual experience in playing a given hole / course IMHO.

The idea that you can get the total sense from just photos alone is stretching the issue don't you think?

Photos give you an "impression" -- the dimension of actually playing the hole / course goes beyond the "impression" to a firsthand and more personal account. The former certainly helps but the latter eliminates all doubts / preconclusions, etc, etc.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

I have never felt...

Those are the key words.
It is also about the feeling.

Maybe your friends don't care about your feelings.  

Cheers

[cary lichtenstein]

My pet peeve is when individuals pontificate about courses they have never seen nor played, regardless of pictures.

Go do some heavy lifting, get out and play the course and then comment.

[Jason Blasberg]

My pet peeve is when individuals pontificate about courses they have never seen nor played, regardless of pictures.

Go do some heavy lifting, get out and play the course and then comment.

HERE! HERE!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Everybody's opinion is flawed, that is one of the reasons why opinions aren't called facts.

That's not true.  Some opinions mirror the facts and are not flawed.[/color]

Why is the viewing golf courses on tv unreliable and without basis in fact?

If you've watched The Masters for years, and then played the golf course you'd know why.

The two are as different as night and day.[/color]

Are you one of these guys that still believes we didn't put a man on the moon?

I'd engage in a battle of wits with you, but, I've made it a policy not to fight with unarmed men.[/color]

[Sean_A]

Pat

I have been insulted by men much brighter than yourself.  You could at least make an attempt to be original.  

Tell me me more about opinions which aren't flawed, it makes for good reading.

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

Patrick

You have been taking exaggeration lessons from Rich.    

Sean

Moi, Muccian?  Surely you exaggerate.

[TEPaul]

George Pazin said:

"Anyway, I think the best way to learn about a hole is to sit and watch multiple groups go through during a tournament. You see how people play a hole under pressure, you see multiple ways of playing a hole, you see a multitude of recovery shots. Really, would I, as a 20+ handicap, learn more from playing the hole even once?"

GeorgeP;

There's no question that your completely right about that, even if I'm certain many on here will disagree and deny that. The reasons that's so true should be obvious. The problem is how many people can actually do that with various golf courses?

My ideal way of really coming to understand a golf course is to walk around it and look at it carefully first (before playing it). Then go play it alone and hit as many shots here and there as you can. Then play it with as wide a spectrum of player levels as you can find---and definitely with at least one who's good.

But how many people are actually able to do that. I've only done it completely that way on basically one course and certianly not more than 3-4 but I sure did learn a lot about it's architecture that way.

Most can only play a course once or twice before forming their opinions of its architecture and obviously a lot about it can be missed that way, even if they'll never admit it.

Even an architect as observant and knowledgeable about golf architecture as Tom Doak will admit that and has. A few years ago he said on here he learned a great deal talking to a tour pro (I seem to remember it was Steve Elkington) about how he looks at and approaches architecture and Tom said he was amazed what he picked up and you may've seen what Tom said he picked up from Nicklaus at Sebonack that way (the perspective on architecture from the back tees which Tom said he hadn't really concentrated on that much).

I'm fortunate to have so much of this opportunity with the officiating that I do at class "A" amateur and Open tournaments but again, how many do that? It definitely does teach you a lot about holes and courses though---what's possible and when, what's not and when etc. And then, if possible you need to take it from the top level back through the playing levels.

But who really gets that kind of opportunity with any golf course other than perhaps their own?

[wsmorrison]

I would add that there is also value watching members play the course to see how a wide range of classes of players play the holes.  After all, it is this group that is the target market.  It certainly is valuable to see how class A amateurs or the ocassional touring pro plays a course but we shouldn't lose sight of who utilizes the course the most...a wide range of players.

I think golf and green chair(wo)men should take time to watch play over a period of time and learn more how the course plays for others than themselves or their regular playing companions.  The more information the better.

George, I certainly do think you will learn more about a hole over time as a 20+ handicapper.  In fact since your game has a wider variation of play compared to that of a scratch golfer, you are more likely to come up with various strategies depending upon your game that day rather than a low handicapper that will vary his strategy only based upon the weather.

[A.G._Crockett]

Why is the viewing golf courses on tv unreliable and without basis in fact?

Sean
I think that you can get a good sense of a golf course on TV, but Augusta is probably the easiest example of the limitations of TV.  The fairly dramatic elevation changes on that course absolutely do not come across on TV, and have a big impact on play.  If some of the really large fairway elevation changes don't show up on the tube, then I can only imagine what I am missing in green contours.  

Take Tiger's chip on 16 this year.  If that was the first time you had ever seen the hole, that would have looked basically flat on TV, and we'd have never known the difference in how the hole should play if one of the leaders hadn't hit it over there where you shouldn't.  I don't know how that could be completely compensated for except by seeing a course in person.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have been insulted by men much brighter than yourself.  You could at least make an attempt to be original.

If you can't take what you give, along with the heat, stay out of the kitchen..

It appears that you get insulted, especially by bright individuals, repetitively.   That would seem to be an example of cause and effect.
   
The cause:  You say something stupid or offensive or both and the bright people respond with what you perceive are insults, when they're merely responding in kind.

As to originality, I didn't want to devote more than a nano-second or waste creative thought, hence originality had to suffer in the interest of brevity.[/color]

Tell me me more about opinions which aren't flawed, it makes for good reading.

My non-flawed opinion is that your stupidity and/or arrogance cause bright people to respond to you in a manner fitting your behavior and address toward them.

July 20th 1969 was probably prior to your date of birth.[/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I'm not sure it's acceptable for bright individuals to "respond in kind".

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

Obviously, Sean, by his own admission, has a history of triggering insulting responses from bright people.

That would seem to be indicative of HIS behavior pattern, rather than that of each bright person he comes into contact with, which is probably a limited number.

Retorts from bright people are amongst the best and funniest of our treasured quotes.

Barlett is full of them.

But, the heart of the matter is:  
If he can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out.

[Sean_A]

AG

I understand and accept the limitations of tv.  It is 2D.  However, it is quite a stretch say that tv is unreliable and not based in fact.  

Pat

If I have insulted you, I apologize.  However, insulting me over and over doesn't make your statements any more true.  

Ciao

Sean

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Patrick
Are you one of these guys that still believes we didn't put a man on the moon?

Ciao

Sean

Sean,
We did land on the moon, which happened to be on a movie set in a abandoned hangar at Norton Air Force Base, right over here in San Bernadino!

(Just kidding!)

[TEPaul]

Go back and read John's first post and take special note of the last line---ie, "Why aren't these opinions valid and what others might you have...the more obscure the better.."

I wish this thread had two pages of responses that basically said;

John, those opinions are valid---to you. Why would any of us tell you any other opinions, particularly obscure ones, when even patently obvious ones make no difference to you whatsoever?



Furthermore, by posting this ridiculous thread you forced Tom Doak to lie to you, not once, but TWICE in one day! Aren't you ashamed of yourself for making him do that?

[George Pazin]

George, I certainly do think you will learn more about a hole over time as a 20+ handicapper.  In fact since your game has a wider variation of play compared to that of a scratch golfer, you are more likely to come up with various strategies depending upon your game that day rather than a low handicapper that will vary his strategy only based upon the weather.

This is a really interesting point, Wayne, but I'm guessing there are abou 1498 people on this site that would disagree with it. Maybe 1497, I think Dave M might agree with it.

Tom P -

Thanks for the kind words. I like your method immensely, but it would be even tougher to do than mine. Not more difficult, per se, just logistically tougher. The real ideal would be to do it on a relatively unknown course before anyone else could tell you anything.

I wonder how many people change their opinion on anything after further reflection. Heck, I wonder how many people even bother to reflect further. We live in a sound bite world, unfortunately, where first impressions are usually the only impressions.

[TEPaul]

"I wonder how many people change their opinion on anything after further reflection. Heck, I wonder how many people even bother to reflect further. We live in a sound bite world, unfortunately, where first impressions are usually the only impressions."

George:

Actually, that's not true. Go back and read the first paragraph on John's initial post.

OK, I can absolutely guarantee you that if I could do something as simple as slap a true tournament set-up on a good golf course compared to a regular membership set-up even John Kavanaugh would be amazed by how different his opinion of the course would be.

In my own club, just a pretty standard restoration and some altered maintenance practices have changed the opinions of the course immensely of most of the membership.

All this proves how falacious John Kavanaugh's statement really is that all he needs to do to have an opinion of a course like ANGC is sit in his livingroom and watch shots to the 12th hole in the Masters.