Rock Creek #18 - 598 Yards - A Finish That Fits

[DMoriarty]

David:

Why is it so difficult to simply admit that two people can see the exact thing very differently? I've taken considerable time and effort to explain my position and you seem equally intent on rejecting it. End of story in my book.

You keep making "end of story" comments, but then you continue on.  Just stop typing if you've already said it.

We do see things differently, but IMO we are looking at/for different things.   I reject your view because I disagree with (among other things):   
1) What I consider to be your general criteria for quality gca;
2) Your willingness to take strong positions on holes and courses with elusive qualities identifiable only after multiple exposures; and least importantly,
3) Your particular perspective on a few of these holes.

Why is my disagreement so hard for you to accept?

If the time and opportunity allow it's my hope to return to Rock Creek and I'll take up your suggestion to play the par-3's from different lengths. I might even have a change of heart on the 18th hole too.

Terrific.  Holes like the 18th may only expose their complete spectrum of problems after multiple plays.  That is one reason I am surprised that your criticisms of the hole have been so strongly expressed.  Glad to hear that you at least hold open the possibility that you are wrong in your preliminary assessment.  That being said, for me stubbornness might make such a change of heart difficult, but then maybe such things don't apply to you.  Still though, I wish you'd keep the possibility that you missed something in mind for all of your reviews based on one or even a few stops.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

I have no issue with your disagreement -- you are the one who keeps firing back on what I missed and have asked me to answer other elements on this thread (listing of short par-3 holes, etc, etc) - which I have in order to stop this ill-conceived notion that I am personally against the significance that quality short par-3 holes can play.

In regards to my thoughts on Rock Creek -- sure -- I might be wrong and guess what? I've said as much here on GCA on other occasions. I am far from the dogmatic and impracyical person some have erroneously claimed. I can only hope you would do likewise when the situation presents itself. It's possible you may come around to my thinking on the holes in question. I won't hold my breath but I would think it's a remote possibility.

Sure, I can miss things or even overplay or underplay other elements. I never said a one time visit to any course is the definitive be-all / end-all statement on where it stands.

David, you challenged me to clarify my postion on the elements I mentioned at Rock Creek. I did -- a few times. You see it differently. OK. So what? Might it be possible that my comments have some real meaning and it is you who is the more stubborn one?

My general criteria for quality architecture has been mentioned previously --in the event you missed it here goes ...

1). Actual land site used
2). The quality of the routing and the overall intergration of all elements of the topography for an 18-hole layout
3). The range and diversity of the shots and holes required when playing. This would also include the element of shot control -- the wherewithal to work the ball as needed - whether high or low or left or right.
4). There are lesser elements such as conditioning -- does the quality of the turf help bring to life the design elements that have been put into place?

That's where I generally begin with all courses I play.

You keep harping on this aspect of "elusive qualities identifiable only after multiple exposures" -- I have a very good eye in sizing up different holes and courses. I don't claim 100% accuracy -- nor can anyone else for that matter. I saluted Rock Creek in a number of ways but my opinions for other specific elements of the course are not in total lock step agreement with yours. That can and will happen. If you don't understand my position(s) then it's likely it is you who has the narrow viewpoint on what consttitutes superior golf design. Like I said different people may have agreement in 75-85% of the total presentation and the rest is nothing more than individual differences.

Simple as that.