Courses and Holes We've Done to Death

[TEPaul]

Bart Bradley:

Pat Mucci probably has some point that it's pretty hard to critique the way holes actually play unless one sees them in person and plays them a number of times to pick up on the nuances of them in play.

But the way a hole "looks" in a general aesthetic sense is certainly nowhere near as difficult to pick up on from a photograph as its nuances in play particularly if the photograph is a decent one from a decent angle.

I don't think anyone who has eyes is ever going to be completely surprised by some difference in the look or aesthetics of the 16th hole at Sleepy Hollow from a good photograph even after playing the hole countlless times.

The look or aesthetics of that hole either from a photo or in person basically just is what it is!

[John Kirk]

TEP,

I was going to say the same thing.  For instance, on the Garden City thread, I played it once, so I have some idea what it plays like, but I feel rather unqualified to comment on the golf holes.  I remember most of the holes and some of the shots.

I don't see how to authoritatively comment on a golf hole until I've played it 5-10 times, or at least spent an hour watching people play it.  Those that can have a better feel for this than I do.

[paul cowley]

The problem with this site lies somewhere between Patrick and Bart.

[John Kirk]

On the other hand, the picture of #16 at Sleepy Hollow makes the strategy of the hole seem pretty clear, particularly when the comment of "do not go long" is incorporated.

[Dan Smoot]

Would there be any interest in analyzing a controversial hole on a course that no one has likely played to provide a topic of discussion on what would you do with it?  Obviously, detailed pictures would have to accompany the thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Smoot,

In what context would you evaluate the opinions on how to play the hole if you've never played it ?

Isn't it a little like the three blind men examining the elephant ?

One feeling the tusk, the other feeling the ear and the third feeling the trunk, then discussing their findings.

Individually and afer sharing their data and analysis, and collectively they have no concept of what they're examining.

[Dan Smoot]

Dan Smoot,

In what context would you evaluate the opinions on how to play the hole if you've never played it ?

Isn't it a little like the three blind men examining the elephant ?

One feeling the tusk, the other feeling the ear and the third feeling the trunk, then discussing their findings.

Individually and afer sharing their data and analysis, and collectively they have no concept of what they're examining.

Sorry for being vague.  My specific thought concerns a course I play regularly.  There is one hole that has a controversial green site that I think is a bit over the top.  I think it could be captured in pictures from a number of different angles.  I would be interested in the respected comments of people on the site if others shared the opinion or if they see solutions.  However, I don't want to bother if the general opinion is that there would not be interest if none had actually played the hole.

[TEPaul]

JohnK;

I do agree that an informed opinon on how a golf hole plays takes a certain amount of time and observation and experience in play. But what a hole looks like and seems to be aesthetically can be gleaned pretty easily from a photograph if it's a good one.

If Pat Mucci is saying that he believes that someone cannot have a pretty good opinion on the aesthetic of a golf hole from a good photograph of it without playing the hole many times first I frankly think Pat is barking up the wrong tree, as usual.

Of course, I expect Patrick to disagree with me. It really doesn't matter anymore what he says or disgrees with. No matter how ridiculous his opinions or positions are he will try to maintain them.

This is precisely why I have so much fun playing these games with him. Believe me, I'm not that bright or clever and the fact is to show Patrick for the fool that he is doesn't really take much!  

[TEPaul]

"The problem with this site lies somewhere between Patrick and Bart."

Paul:

If the problem with this site lies somewhere between Patrick and Bart I really do wonder where the solution for this site could possibly lie.  

Or do you mean the problem FOR this site (to solve) lies somewhere between Patrick and Bart?

But I do need to ask you a potentially important question, Paul----do you think there is any imaginable constructive reason to consider the degree of Patrick's stupidity?

I hope your answer won't be in the affirmative because then the next question of why would be frankly too depressing for words.

[Eric_Terhorst]

However, I don't want to bother if the general opinion is that there would not be interest if none had actually played the hole.

Dan, I hope you will  ignore "general opinion" and post the pictures  for discussion.  As Tom Paul says, good pictures can stimulate discussion, which you and others may find valuable.

Tom Doak,

You could argue that discussions of certain template holes like the Redan, Short, Eden, and Road, and green types like Punch Bowl and Biarritz have been "done to death" around here.  If those were banned too,  would large portions of Old Macdonald be off-limits for discussion   ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Pat Mucci is saying that he believes that someone cannot have a pretty good opinion on the aesthetic of a golf hole from a good photograph of it without playing the hole many times first I frankly think Pat is barking up the wrong tree, as usual.

TEPaul,

Please have the attendents and/or nurses read what I wrote.
Evidently, that skill is beyond you.

I NEVER mentioned forming opinions of the aesthetics based on a photo, I was quite specific with reference to playability and detailing the architecture and how it relates to playability.[/color]

Of course, I expect Patrick to disagree with me.

Of course I do.
But, your problem lies within the realm of observation and reading comprehension.  If you can't understand what you read, how can you hope to have an intelligent discussion without the aid of the attendents ?[/color]

It really doesn't matter anymore what he says or disgrees with. No matter how ridiculous his opinions or positions are he will try to maintain them.

If you can cite flawed facts and/or faulty logic on my part, please point them out, but, absent that discovery, you can only continue to bay at the moon, or at all those phantom houses that don't exist behind the 1st green at PV.[/color]

This is precisely why I have so much fun playing these games with him.

Me three[/color]

[size=4x]
Believe me, I'm not that bright or clever[/size]



This may be the understatement of they year on GCA.com.
Or, perhaps, since it's inception.

This is something I realized the first day on this site, that's why I try to use small words and simple concepts, so that, you, with the help of your attendents and/or nurses, can hopefully gain an inclination as to the general gist of my posts.[/color]

and the fact is to show Patrick for the fool that he is doesn't really take much!  

Not much at all, however, I was taught, early on, that it's important to make the other guy feel like he's much smarter, knows more and is winning every debate.  I think I've done a good job in pulling the wool over your eyes.  Now, if the attendants and/or nurses would only leave it there, you wouldn't be able to see the keyboard.  [/color]

[Lloyd_Cole]

The Catch 22 of Tom's initial gambit is the search engine of this site. Maybe this is being addressed in the update. Until then, most of us know it's not worth searching for discussion of specific holes. So, Tom may be tired of it, but the newcomer isn't even baptised yet.

How an FAQ type area where we compile discussion and photos of these oft discussed courses and holes? In all seriousness, there may be decent little book to be had. I'd buy it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:
I will be in the bay area for a week in the third week in january. Why don't we play the ST Muni at some point and we can have an insider/once around type exchange regarding some or all of the holes?

Sounds great to me!  But man, just understand that the course is fairly decent for a muni, but that's about the best we can say about it.  With all the choices here, I'd hate for you to waste the 6+ hours to play my home course...

Let's keep in touch.  Perhaps I get a hall pass then... the "visiting dignitary" excuse does tend to work from time to time.

TH
huckaby72@yahoo.com

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

If Pat Mucci is saying that he believes that someone cannot have a pretty good opinion on the aesthetic of a golf hole from a good photograph of it without playing the hole many times first I frankly think Pat is barking up the wrong tree, as usual.

TEPaul,

Please have the attendents and/or nurses read what I wrote.
Evidently, that skill is beyond you.

I NEVER mentioned forming opinions of the aesthetics based on a photo, I was quite specific with reference to playability and detailing the architecture and how it relates to playability.[/color]

Of course, I expect Patrick to disagree with me.

Of course I do.
But, your problem lies within the realm of observation and reading comprehension.  If you can't understand what you read, how can you hope to have an intelligent discussion without the aid of the attendents ?[/color]

It really doesn't matter anymore what he says or disgrees with. No matter how ridiculous his opinions or positions are he will try to maintain them.

If you can cite flawed facts and/or faulty logic on my part, please point them out, but, absent that discovery, you can only continue to bay at the moon, or at all those phantom houses that don't exist behind the 1st green at PV.[/color]

This is precisely why I have so much fun playing these games with him.

Me three[/color]

[size=4x]
Believe me, I'm not that bright or clever[/size][/color]



This may be the understatement of they year on GCA.com.
Or, perhaps, since it's inception.

This is something I realized the first day on this site, that's why I try to use small words and simple concepts, so that, you, with the help of your attendents and/or nurses, can hopefully gain an inclination as to the general gist of my posts.[/color]

and the fact is to show Patrick for the fool that he is doesn't really take much!  

Not much at all, however, I was taught, early on, that it's important to make the other guy feel like he's much smarter, knows more and is winning every debate.  I think I've done a good job in pulling the wool over your eyes.  Now, if the attendants and/or nurses would only leave it there, you wouldn't be able to see the keyboard.  [/color]