[Jason Mandel]

When Forest Fezzler gave his talk at Pine Needles one of the things he said about MP is that before him and Mike started work on the course they were out there one day just driving around.  And their was an old lady who could barely get the ball off the ground, but was still enjoying the game.

I think it was at that moment they both realized that since the average age of the membership was older than normal, they needed to build a course that was member friendly.  So if thats why perhaps their aren't forced carries or even deep bunkers, Mike built the course with the members in mind first.  I think more of that needs to be done today.

Jason

[Bob_Huntley]

When Forest Fezzler gave his talk at Pine Needles one of the things he said about MP is that before him and Mike started work on the course they were out there one day just driving around.  And their was an old lady who could barely get the ball off the ground, but was still enjoying the game.

I think it was at that moment they both realized that since the average age of the membership was older than normal, they needed to build a course that was member friendly.  So if thats why perhaps their aren't forced carries or even deep bunkers, Mike built the course with the members in mind first.  I think more of that needs to be done today.

Jason

Mike and Jason,

The foregoing sums it up. The Shore is user friendly and even from the tiger tees there are only two holes with difficult carries, the par three 9th and the par 5 16th. The ladies love it and believe me the green could give you fits with some of the contours.

Bob

[Jay Flemma]

DEar Pat:

I dont think it does.  Yes the other courses are more well known, but thats only through time and TV.  Strantz knew he had a chance to "pay homage to" Mackenzie and Pebble by adding another face to Mt. Rushmore as it were.  He did admirably.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bob:

How many people have you seen play to their handicaps or below on the Shore?  You sure as hell haven't seen me do so, nor have I seen any of our playing partners.  

These are the ratings - man if this is too easy, golf really HAS gone adrift:

Shore
                         Men
Gold     72        73.6     138      6806
Black   72        71.8     134      6522
Blue     72        69.9     129      6019
White   69        68.4     125      5719

Those numbers to me are pretty darn high; and in any event are certainly not too low so as to disqualify the course from a "great" consideration.

So yes, the Shore is geared toward the membership, as it should be.  I just don't think it at all fails to challenge the scratch player.  And in the end isn't that all that is necessary?  Don't the best courses achieve both of these ends - that is allow Grannie and Daly to each enjoy themselves?

Far be it from me to advise on this... talk about hubris... but I really think you ought to be celebrating the Shore for this rather than bemoaning any perception of lack of challenge.  

Patrick:

I don't see the overemphasis on difficulty that you do in the ratings.  Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't - but quite a few not so brutal courses remain quite celebrated.  What I do see was a long trend of overemphasis on length and difficulty in new courses being built, but happily that tide does seem to be turning back toward the fun over difficulty side.


Jay/Patrick:

I do think both MPCC courses suffer due to proximity the nearby greats in terms of PERCEPTION and perhaps RANKING and definitely attention; it's inevitable.  When one is at best the third best course in its immediate area, it's gonna be tough to then say how great it is nation-wide or world-wide.  That's just human nature.

TH

[Ian Andrew]

The Shore course is magnificent, the course is full of charm and fun and makes you love the game. You can't wait to play it again. Spyglass is dour and serious beyon the opening five and it makes you want to play at a different course next round out.

I've never quite understood the high praise that Spyglass gets. Its a full test and has a wonderfull setting for the opening five holes. It has a couple of great holes, but the highest compliment I could give it is it's lack of bad holes.

[Tom Huckaby]

The Shore course is magnificent, the course is full of charm and fun and makes you love the game. You can't wait to play it again. Spyglass is dour and serious beyon the opening five and it makes you want to play at a different course next round out.

I've never quite understood the high praise that Spyglass gets. Its a full test and has a wonderfull setting for the opening five holes. It has a couple of great holes, but the highest compliment I could give it is it's lack of bad holes.

Ian: man I don't want to pull the Mucci card here, but I have to ask:  how many times have you played Spyglass?

I ask because up until fairly recently - that is up until about  my 10th time playing the course - I thought of it exactly like you state here.  It kicked my ass time and time again, revealed my faults, and while a little of that is ok, yep, I couldn't wait to get to another course where the proof wasn't so clear.  

But then in recent years, playing it several more times, and receiving some wisdom from guys in here (in particular Adam Clayman), a funny change has occurred...I've come to see all sorts of greatness in Spyglass, and have come to appreciate it a LOT more.  Such is difficult to articulate and we really need Adam to do it justice; I have just come to have several very fun rounds on the course, score be damned, and have seen a lot more.  I do think it is a truly great golf course, 1-18.  Of course I still do favor the first 5 holes - who wouldn't - but there's a lot of greatness thereafter as well.

It's a strange course - very polarizing.

In any case, I am with you re the Shore - very fun, deserving of all accolades, and in fact more than Mr. Huntley seems willing to give!

That being said, I still prefer the Dunes and will maintain it is the ever so slightly superior course.

And put both of these in a hat with Spyglass and it seems right to me.  All three are indeed truly great golf courses.

TH

[PThomas]

Huck :  but do you think Spyg deserves its VERY lofty ranking??

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul:

Depends on what ranking you mean, I guess.

I do think it deserves to be ranked quite highly.  It is a truly great golf course.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

It kicked my ass time and time again, revealed my faults, and while a little of that is ok, yep, I couldn't wait to get to another course where the proof wasn't so clear.  

Why would, or why should getting your ass kicked be the criterion for determining the architectural merits of the golf course ?
[/color]

[Brent Hutto]

I think you should try to understand what a course is trying to be and then judge it according to its merits.

I think the Shore course at MPCC is a perfectly wonderful course that utilizes its world-class setting very effectively and serves the golf games of its membership appropriately. So by that measure it is a success.

Spyglass Hill intends to be a big, bold, man-sized course on which one could hold a tournament for the top players in the game while also being beautiful enough to justify its place among the other courses in that forest. I think Spyglass meets and exceeds those requirements. It gives an outsized sense of scale and three-dimensionality and the best players in the world declare it a tough track for medal play tournaments.

I couldn't say that one or the other of these courses is "better" any more than I could say a 747 is "better" than an F-14. The 747 is a fabulous airliner for flying hundreds of people halfway around the world. The F-14 is unbeatable flying air superiority missions from the deck of a carrier. Spyglass Hill is, in part, about getting ones ass kicked just as the F-14 is about kicking someone's ass if necessary. Ass kicking has nothing to do with MPCC Shore any more than it does with a 747.

[Ian Andrew]

Huck,

I've been there on more than one occasion, although I don't see your arguement. I'm hard pressed to see where more of the course is going to unfold through multiple playings. Typical of Trent's work, your test is right there in front of you to understand and play.

For the most part Spyglass asks me to hit the same set of shots all day. It's a wonderful test and the best Trent Jones course I've played, but it's not one of the courses that I long to play again.

I'm not going argue whether the Shore course is better or not, I frankly don't care. But I found I played a variety of shots to greens because I was given the option to do so. I simply had more fun playing the course. I would like another opportunity to enjoy the course again.

The Shore course enticed me into getting in to trouble, Spyglass settled me into a simple conservative game. I'd rather face the options offered by the Shore Course.

[ChasLawler]

Evidently, Sam Morse was a man of vision.
More clubs should adopt that financial model.

I think this financial model is somewhat of a double-edged sword. My club has a similar model - the only difference being that none of the initiation fee is ever refunded.

The problem with throwing all those fees into capital improvements is that with many capital improvements, you can also increase the operating expenses. Changes to the golf course may not increase expenses, but clubhouse, locker room and dining room expansions certainly will.

While there hasn't been an "assessment" at my club in almost 100 years, the annual dues sure seem to be steadily rising. And with initiation fees more than doubling over the last 10 years, everyone's chomping at the bit to spend those capital dollars on their own ideas.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ian:

We need Adam Clayman.  He has articulated this very well i the past.  I'm having a hard time with this, it is difficult for me.  I just do have to say that features have indeed revealed themselves over time - and I too never thought would ever happen - I looked at it just as you do now.

Patrick:

Of course it was Ian who made this point - I was just concurring on the feeling I got many times playing that course.  But what the hell, I'll take you on again.

Getting one's ass kicked is certainly not THE sole criterion for judging the architectural merits of a golf course.  BUT, just like scenic views, it remains silly NOT TO CONSIDER AT ALL.  If a golf course is so brutally hard that it is no fun to play except for the most-highly skilled, that's a negative in my book.

As my eyes saw it before, Spyglass might have gotten a tiny negative in that respect - as a few courses do.  But it really is negated by how fun the first 5 holes are, difficult and all.  And then it became completely negated when I came to see more of the fun involved in the remaining 13 holes, and less of the penal brutality.

Capice?

 

Brent - very well said.  I'm just hear to tell you that it's way too simple to say Spyglass is all brutality and MPCC Shore is all fun - what I've come to learn is that each course has elements of both.

TH

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

"I looked at it just as you do now."

What took 10 plus rounds to reveal itself ? Did you discover a different type of approach was better rewarded on certain holes? Was there a key pin placement on a couple of hole or an altered set-ups that changed everything ? Or did the place kind of grow on you through repeated playing ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Ian:  all of the above.

I will admit a lot of it was a bit of maturity - that is, not letting the ass-kicking bother me as much.  But more of it was things pointed out by Adam - a knob here, an odd stance there, a different strategy there - dammit I wish I could put this better and give you specifics.  But I haven't been there in over a year and haven't thought about it much since, so the specifics are failing me.

PAGING ADAM CLAYMAN!!!!

 

[Scott_Burroughs]

I played Spyglass and Shore on the same day last year and I know which one I yearned to play again more.  Maybe it's not fair that I'm a huge Strantz fan.  Personally, I didn't find Spyglass to be all that difficult, but after the 5th hole, it's a 'nice parkland course'.  I scored either the same or one stroke different, but if the wind really howled, Shore would be much tougher.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I think that most would agree that the 13 holes that follow the opening 5 holes can't keep up with the tempo set by the first five holes.

Noone cares how your game fared on a particular day.  
Games vary, but the land, the architecture remains static.

To evaluate architecture in the context of your golf game, which you described in another thread as varying between, about 72 and 87, is a flawed process.

One must detach THEIR game from the architecture.
One must not evaluate the architecture as a function of YOUR score.
 
Golf courses tend to be brutally hard because the golfer's EGO compels them to play from the wrong tees.

That's another reason why evaluation must be a detached process and not one dependent upon how the golfer fared, scorewise, on the golf course being played-evaluated.

[Jay Flemma]

I always liked the quote attributed to Nicklaus about "When I play Pebble it makes me love being a golfer, when I play Spyglass, I wish I went fishing."

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom Huckaby,



 
Golf courses tend to be brutally hard because the golfer's EGO compels them to play from the wrong tees.

I wish I had read that before playing Cabo del Sol from the Gold Tees. I did because I was receiving strokes from a couple of big knockers and felt that going forwrd would be unfair. I could have given up the stokes, but needed them rather like Linus with his blanket.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

You're right - but to paraphrase a former president, there you go again.

Please be careful with the absolutes.  Just because some one does something ONCE does not mean he does it all the time.

Look at it this way:  part of the greatness, or weakness, or anything-ness of Spyglass Hill is that it is a very difficult golf course.  Ask 100 people about the course and 97 are gonna mention how tough it is within the first two sentences.  The same goes for Bethpage Black, I gather, as well as several others.

To deny it's a factor is as silly as denying that peripheral views matter.

 

So there we are.  No need to debate further.

But just to clarify some of your misconceptions:

a) Where did I mention what tees I played, other than to say I had my best round from the white?  The course has kicked my ass from all sets of tees.  And good lord, you're talking to one of the least tee-ego golfers you'll ever see.  I sure as hell didn't demand you move back to the tips at Sand Hills, remember?  I'll play the freakin' purple challenger tees if that's what the group wants to do.  

b) Rest assured that outside of extremes like this - which remain silly to deny - any evaluations I do are far removed from my personal play.  Hell I usually don't keep score.

In any case, back to Spyglass, of course holes 6-18 can't "keep up the tempo" of the first 5.  But it's interesting YOU should say that... exactly what outside of peripheral issues exist from 6 forward?  Trees?  

The words hoisted on one's own petard are coming to mind....

 

So Ok, leaving our personal shit battle aside, I do believe there is far more than holes 6-18 than most would see.  It's taken me a long time, and I only got there with the help of Adam.

I don't expect many to get this, or buy it.  It's just my take.  But there you have it.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

You're right

but to paraphrase a former president, there you go again.

Yes, there I go again, being right again.
It's a habit that tends to repeat itself. [/color]

Please be careful with the absolutes.  Just because some one does something ONCE does not mean he does it all the time.

If you alluded to it only once, I doubt I would have raised the issue.[/color]

Look at it this way:  part of the greatness, or weakness, or anything-ness of Spyglass Hill is that it is a very difficult golf course.  Ask 100 people about the course and 97 are gonna mention how tough it is within the first two sentences.

Probably because they played from the wrong tees.[/color]  

The same goes for Bethpage Black, I gather, as well as several others.

Bethpage Black is difficult if you play it from the U.S. Open tees.  If it's played from tees commensurate with your ability it would not be deemed overly difficult.[/color]

To deny it's a factor is as silly as denying that peripheral views matter.

I deny it's a factor.
When a golfer plays from tees beyond his ability, that's not difficulty, that's stupidity.  

Evaluating the architecture based on the golfer's inability to cope with the length of the golf course is a trend in the ratings, and one of the core reasons they're flawed.

Golfer's play all the way back and encounter and recall the difficulty without observing and remembering the architecture and its merits.
Hence, the ratings have become hopelessly entwined in the degree of difficulty instead of the quality of the architecture.
[/color]

a) Where did I mention what tees I played, other than to say I had my best round from the white?  The course has kicked my ass from all sets of tees.  And good lord, you're talking to one of the least tee-ego golfers you'll ever see.  I sure as hell didn't demand you move back to the tips at Sand Hills, remember?  

I had already played the tips, the double diamonds and determined that playing them continuously for the remainder of the trip wouldn't be productive.[/color]

I'll play the freakin' purple challenger tees if that's what the group wants to do.  

Playing an agreed set of tees during a match isn't the issue.
The issue is that the outcome of your encounter with the golf course shouldn't determine your evaluation of the golf course.[/color]

b) Rest assured that outside of extremes like this - which remain silly to deny - any evaluations I do are far removed from my personal play.  Hell I usually don't keep score.

In any case, back to Spyglass, of course holes 6-18 can't "keep up the tempo" of the first 5.  But it's interesting YOU should say that... exactly what outside of peripheral issues exist from 6 forward?  Trees?  

The words hoisted on one's own petard are coming to mind....


I'm afraid that you've missed the point.

Too often SH is evaluated or described in the context of the first five holes.   I merely pointed out that they're a tough act to follow, and that many golfers and/or raters can't remember holes 6-18.

I also quoted you with respect to your rating/perspective on SH versus MPCC, wherein you provided your 50-50 answer.

It would seem, that based on what you and others had to say about SH and MPCC, that MPCC ranks above SH even though you won't find that in print.[/color]

So Ok, leaving our personal shit battle aside, I do believe there is far more than holes 6-18 than most would see.  It's taken me a long time, and I only got there with the help of Adam.

If it took you a LONG time, and only under the tutorage of Adam Clayman, to see some of the merits of golf holes 6-18, then something must be missing in the architecture of those holes or in the perceptive abilities of the rater [/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

You are so wrong about so many things here, I really don't know where to begin.

In fact you are so globally wrong about every point you just made, I'm going to give up on you as there is no hope.

Let's discuss this again when you find your sanity and logic.  I remain hopeful for you.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Patrick,

Were you trained by Jesuits?

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Were you trained by Jesuits?

Bob,

No, I just have a twisted mind and a unique sense of humor.

But, thanks for asking.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()