Two analyses of the same hole

[George Pazin]

I'm not offended at all, I understand you're playfully defending your position, as I am playfully making fun of it. You're perfectly well mannered.

I don't see where I misrepresented anything. My statement of relative difficulty means the same thing as your position, at least to me. I'd be satisfied with 1 pro and 1 am doing the test, but if you feel it would take a lot, then I guess you're right, the test will remain a dream.

Unless we could get everyone on here at Augusta, in normal conditions, not Masters conditions, and round up a few hundred tour pros... I'll start making the calls.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Your initial statement completely mispresented my point:


flat greens are tougher relatively speaking for pros versus ams than contoured greens.

To set the record straight:

My contention remains that on contoured greens the am will come closer to the pro  - based on number of strokes - than on flat greens.  That is NOT the same thing as saying
flat greens are tougher relatively speaking for pros versus ams than contoured greens.  The key here is that golf isn't based on how close one gets to the hole, but on number of strokes required to hole the ball.  A 2inch tap in counts the same as a 4 foot putt so long as both go in the hole - and that is the key point to all of this.

As I say, we can get into the details of this again if you wish... and then maybe you will come to see the light absent a test that's never going to happen, as AG Crockett did (and he was initially more vehement against this than you were/are).

But rehashing long given-up points is not my bag.  Of course neither is putting words in people's mouths they never said.

 

[George Pazin]

...flat greens are tougher relatively speaking for pros versus ams than contoured greens.

My contention remains that on contoured greens the am will come closer to the pro  - based on number of strokes - than on flat greens.

I will admit that my math is better than my English, always has been, but I don't see how these statements do not mean the same thing. If the am is closer to the pro on contoured greens than flat greens, then aren't flat greens tougher relatively speaking for the pro? My sentence is a bit awkward, but I don't see where it doesn't have the same meaning.

I don't remember AG ever coming around to your way of thinking, but I can't say I remember everyone's positions on the topic. I can only say with 100% accuracy that I remember mine, which I extended further to the thesis that anything that makes the game more difficult for the pro, will have an even greater affect on the amateur. Now, if you want to say that that isn't what my statement of flat greens being relatively more difficult means, then I guess we'd have to have Dan Kelly or someone else parse the English.

For Scott's sake, let's set this aside. Rest assured, if I ever have the eureka moment, I will let you know, as I expect you will if you ever change your mind.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

"Misrepresents" was a bit harsh - sorry.  I would say your statement grossly oversimplifies the issue, and my contention.  The key is your use of the word "tougher".  

In any case also, it doesn't help to call anyone's position "mind-numbingly wrong."

 

Yes we should let this go.  But how fair is it for you to have the last word, especially when you STILL don't seem to understand the point I am trying to make?

There's no need to parse any English.  The problem here remains the use of the word "tougher."  Because what is the measure?  Yes, it will always be tougher for the am to get the ball closer to the hole than the pro, on any greens.  Simple logic, obvious.  Skilled is better than non-skilled, no matter what.

But that's not how things work in golf - not so simply anyway.

If you really think about this, and don't get caught up in the absolute you state, and think about it in terms of strokes required to hole the ball, not in terms of how close they get or how well they roll the ball or anything like that, I feel confident you will understand the point, as AGC eventually did.  And he did, believe me.  I don't soon forget minor victories like that, as they are rare.

 

It comes down to a 2 inch putt being equal to a 3 footer, combined with the my strong belief that a pro will hole a lot of flat putts, and an am won't make many at all.  

I'm happy to leave this be, though in a perfect world it would be nice if you understood the actual point I make and characterized it correctly.  To date you're not disagreeing with me at all - you're disagreeing with what you THINK I said.

And that is difficult to just leave be.

TH

[Jason Blasberg]

I will admit that the more photos from various angles is additive in being able to critique.  But, no critique will ever be complete and totally valid without personally inspecting the hole via play or study on site.

I completely agree, walking a course is imperative.  For instance, when I first played Cuscowilla I was very suprised at the way the property rolled and some of the elevation change that I didn't quite appreciate from Ran's review.  

The different angle of 11 at LD shows the fairway contouring much better and you get a vivid sense of the green movement that is obscured by the more direct perspective.  

I have a hunch that Lost Dunes is one of those sites that photos just don't quite capture.  

[George Pazin]

In any case also, it doesn't help to call anyone's position "mind-numbingly wrong."

Huck -

When you're right, you're right. I forgot we have a lot of newer posters who might not realize we're old friends and I was just teasing you about a silly theoretical argument. So I apologize for the remark, especially the timing.

Not that you're right about the argument....

[Tom Huckaby]

George - no hassles man - and my bad also for taking up too much space on this thread for our tangent!

Whoops I did it again... hey that should be a song...

 

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Scott -

Terrific!

Since I have not played Lost Dunes, I am not allowed to comment on the design, playability, conditioning, routing, etc.  ;>)

But if I could...I like the photo that shows the hole from the left tee.

JWK



JWK

[Brian Gracely]

But if I could...I like the photo that shows the hole from the left tee.

The original pictures from Scott are from the 11th tee.  The second picture is from the 10th green.  There is not a "left tee".  

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Brian -

Thanks!

Is there room for a tee over in that area?

JWK

[Brian Gracely]

Is there room for a tee over in that area?

JWK

It depends on your definition of "enough room".  There is probably enough room to build a "Pebble Beach #8" sized tee next to the green or even behind the green.  But I don't believe there is enough room to build a large tee or multiple tees.....at least not without disrupting the existing 10th green too much.

The other holes on the course twist and turn enough that #11 being essentially straight is not a drawback.