How Open Is Your Mind ?

[Tommy Williamsen]

 

Garland;

Your comment is spot on, though not because of what he said in this article. In a report he did on GKL about a trip to Michigan, he played 'The Gailes'. I will paste his comment.

"The next day we drove on up the shore to Oscoda and played The Gailes course at Lakewood Shores Resort (www.lakewoodshores.com). They have 3 courses at the resort and most people were not playing The Gailes. It didn't take me too many holes to figure out why. The Gailes is a Scottish Links style course. That means it is nothing at all like Nevel Meade in Louisville, Kentucky. The links in Scotland are built on the rolling sandy scrubland near the sea. The Gailes is built on rolling sandy scrub near the lake. It averaged 6 pot bunkers per hole (none of which could be seen from the tee box which was rarely elevated). It had a creek meandering through the course that I found at least twice and they even had several sod faced bunkers. We actually watched two young Scots working on one during our round. I believe The Gailes is a pretty authentic Scottish Links style course. At least my 94 helped me decide not to go to Scotland, and also to understand why the pros are seldom under par at the British Open. The Gailes is definitely a 4 star course in good condition; it's just not my cup of tea. "

You see? He did NOT say it was in anyway less than a good course. He simply said HE didn't feel comfortable with that kind of golf. We all have our likes/dislikes. Some are within a wider range than others. Moe is in his late 60's [I think], and has played golf all around the country. He knows what he likes. I often agree with him. I also often disagree. But I always noticed he is intellegent and thoughtful. He has reasons for his own choices, just as we do. It would indeed be good if he were here to debate them.

Doug

 
[/quote]

I guess what bothers me about his assessment of 'Links" golf is that he has played one course in the US and from that experience decided not to go to Scotland.  To decide from one experience that "links golf is not my cup of tee" is to lump them all together. It seems to me that after one experience he should want to test the waters some where else.   

[Adam Clayman]

Basing the quality of a golf course solely on one's own playing preferences, especially those Mr. Moe espouses, based on his score, illustrates an arrogance that should not to be taken too seriously, unless one wants to learn what not to do. IMNSHO

[Doug Ralston]

Garland;

Your comment is spot on, though not because of what he said in this article. In a report he did on GKL about a trip to Michigan, he played 'The Gailes'. I will paste his comment.

"The next day we drove on up the shore to Oscoda and played The Gailes course at Lakewood Shores Resort (www.lakewoodshores.com). They have 3 courses at the resort and most people were not playing The Gailes. It didn't take me too many holes to figure out why. The Gailes is a Scottish Links style course. That means it is nothing at all like Nevel Meade in Louisville, Kentucky. The links in Scotland are built on the rolling sandy scrubland near the sea. The Gailes is built on rolling sandy scrub near the lake. It averaged 6 pot bunkers per hole (none of which could be seen from the tee box which was rarely elevated). It had a creek meandering through the course that I found at least twice and they even had several sod faced bunkers. We actually watched two young Scots working on one during our round. I believe The Gailes is a pretty authentic Scottish Links style course. At least my 94 helped me decide not to go to Scotland, and also to understand why the pros are seldom under par at the British Open. The Gailes is definitely a 4 star course in good condition; it's just not my cup of tea. "

You see? He did NOT say it was in anyway less than a good course. He simply said HE didn't feel comfortable with that kind of golf. We all have our likes/dislikes. Some are within a wider range than others. Moe is in his late 60's [I think], and has played golf all around the country. He knows what he likes. I often agree with him. I also often disagree. But I always noticed he is intellegent and thoughtful. He has reasons for his own choices, just as we do. It would indeed be good if he were here to debate them.

Doug

 

I guess what bothers me about his assessment of 'Links" golf is that he has played one course in the US and from that experience decided not to go to Scotland.  To decide from one experience that "links golf is not my cup of tee" is to lump them all together. It seems to me that after one experience he should want to test the waters some where else.   
[/quote]

Tommy;

He did. And I think Moe was not making a literal statement that this particular course stopped him from going to Scotland, in so far as he had a trip planned there which was now cancelled. I think what he was saying is that his impression of the Gailes being like Scottish links made him consider whether, if the opportunity came to go there 'as opposed' to other golfing venues, he might enjoy what he would find elsewhere more.

Not everyone does like, as he describes, 6 hidden pot bunkers on every hole; among other features. He did not sound as if he thought it was bad golf, just, as he so succinctly put it in British context, his cup of tea.

This came to my mind because Moe had played Wild Horse, which is so idolized here, and had not found it nearly as much to his liking as Harvester or Lakota Canyon on the same trip. I just wanted to show how much range people can have with their tastes in GCA. Moe is not some occasional weekend golf, but a serious player who has played widely for many years. He is smart and articulate. he can tell you why he likes or dislikes particular aspects.  So he opinions do not represent lack of either consideration or experience.

We all think differently. That can only be helpful.

Adam;

Moe hardly bases his likes or dislikes on scores, or Links of North Dakota [where he shot his record round], would not have been at the bottom of his ranking of the courses he played on the trip I described earlier.  Please read the response above and reconsider what you think you know about Moe. I hope to talk him into joining us, because I think his large experience and the thoughtfulness he puts in analysing courses on his trip reports would indicate a lot to bring here. A good guy, too. Be nice to him.

Doug

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, I read those descriptions. I found it odd how he found two cross hazards and blames the design. He mentioned his score in his analysis. If thats not a tell...

[Garland Bayley]

...Links of North Dakota [where he shot his record round],...

This combined with his

At least my 94 helped me decide not to go to Scotland, and also to understand why the pros are seldom under par at the British Open.

suggests that your

But I always noticed he is intellegent and thoughtful.

Might not be that accurate.

[Doug Ralston]

Garland and Adam;

OK, I will give you a desription of his entire trip, plus comments by others as he reported from far away. I take you back, back to those exciting days on golfkentuckylinks.com when the Clark and Saceagawea trip was enacted and we enjoyed the fruits thereof. From the forum. Read if you will.

http://golfkentuckylinks.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=771&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

And please consider the possibility that opinions other than yours may still be backed with insight. I know how hard that will be for you.

Doug

[Garland Bayley]

...
And please consider the possibility that opinions other than yours may still be backed with insight. I know how hard that will be for you.

Doug

You know nothing! And you should cut the crap.

I simply suggest he think about why he scored a personal best at the Links of ND to perhaps understand why scores on links courses of the British Open are sometimes high, although he seems not to recognize that often they are low, just like his score at the Links of ND.

[Jason Topp]

Matt:

I have no idea if I am open minded.  I think I am but I recognize that my perception is probably not the most accurate measure of the issue.

Your question touches on the difference between preferences and a more objective standard of quality.  I do not do not abandon the idea.  If all we are talking about is merely a set of personal preferences, then there is not that much need to discuss the subject at all.  

My stab at a definition of high quality:

I believe a high quality course poses an interesting problem for each shot.  Such a course forces the player to make interesting choices and, while it can have penal holes on the course, never presents a shot devoid of interest.  In general, a high quality course is also one that, if played from the wrong set of tees or in unusual wind conditions, still provides an enjoyable experience.  Appearance is a factor in a high quality course and avoidance of lost balls is also a factor.


Preferences on issues Matt has touched upon:

Natural v. Artificial:  I prefer natural looking over artificial.  If something is going to look artificial, I prefer that it be angular in shape (a la Raynor) over rounded very artifical mounds (many Dye Courses).

Bunkers:  My ideal bunkers are those in Australia.  The bunkers I most dislike are the cookie cutter lobe type bunkers that seem to be on most courses.  Beyond that, I like variety but do not like grass fringes that yield unplayable lies.

Wide Farways:  I prefer wide fairways but think width is less important than providing interest.  Many recent courses have wide fairways.  I agree with Matt, however, that many do not force decisions on placement off the tee.  Interest off of the tee is a key differentiator, in my mind, of recent courses.  Creating interest off the tee while making the course playable is the gold standard.  

[Adam Clayman]

And please consider the possibility that opinions other than yours may still be backed with insight. I know how hard that will be for you.

Doug, Insight into what? His own self educated belief that what he's been handed, over the years, as far Modern golf goes, is of the highest quality? The majority of it is mediocre, usually based on a lack of attention to detail and fundamental principles. 

 It's no skin off my nose if my opinion doesn't jibe with yours. I respect your right to have it, voice it, live it.

The way you preach your dogma within these halls makes me think you're the one doing the bashing of others opinions.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason T:

Well said.

Yes, preferences are indeed individualistic and people are free to like what they like. I agree -- even though a few people, who have continued with their tired predictable barking, and have failed to really grasp what this thread is about. Thanks for your keen understanding.

You also make a fine point concerning wide fairways and the nature of decisions that should be made when standing on the tee. "(i)nterest off the tee ... while making the course playable" is a well said comment.

Be curious to know if you have courses that you really like that would fall just outside of your personal comfort zone (see your definition of "high quality")?

If you could name a few of them I'd be interested to see what they are and how they stack up against other courses that are on your short list of solid greatness as per your own definition.

Thanks ...

Andy:

In the example you provided -- a design that overly accentuates the negative dimension for failure to execute -- doesn't really equate to a sound design. Quality design -- tries to incorporate elements of different options for the player to consider and to provide rewards -- in degree to which the player executes successfully.

I agree with you -- a design that overly concentrates its task in one particular manner with little real differentiation in terms of overall shot values soon becomes a one trick pony show and will quickly lose interest for most players.  


Tommy W:

Enjoyed your post and your thoughts ... "The discussions I find distasteful are the ones that tend to discount the bulk of some architect’s work: Fazio, Rees Jones, Nicklaus to name a few. They are similar to discussions I have with religious folks who can’t think outside their own little box. I have been consigned to hell more than once. Fortunately they do not attend my church (at least anymore)."

Delightful comments indeed !

You also are quite on target on the elements of the Doak / Engh situation and what each brings to the table.

Thanks for sharing ...

Garland B said, "Well pardner, any course rewards fine play."

Let me enlighten you since you seem a bit confused in your thinking ... I have played courses where fine play is not rewarded proportionally to the level of skill / execution demonstrated. On the flip side I have also played course where poor play is not penalized in the same manner. You make it sound axiomatic that such situations are part and parcel of all golf courses. Let me break this news flash to you in the event you've been in the dark closet for too long ... there are a horde of courses I have played where the basic fundamental premise of golf is not central to the design. In sum - such courses are flawed IMHO.

What I said with this thread is that the style / presentation / form of golf courses is quite elastic and if someone really has an "open" mind can easily appreciate such differences even though they may still have individualist preferences.

B Crosby said ...

"Being dogmatic means that you can't imagine anything that would ever change your preferences.The gap between those two statements is as wide as the ocean. I don't know of anyone that posts on GCA that holds the latter view."

Bob, c'mon let's be a bit forthcoming shall we. If you really have read the posts of a number of people -- both regular contributors and those who are a bit more infrequent, you will see the desire to sell a particular style of golf course as the one true way to golf design bliss. These same people -- as Tommy W pointed out so correctly have no inhibition to bash anything coming from the likes of Rees Jones, Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus, to name just three, as being golf course contributions that are way off the charts. I have tried in my response to such posts to try to get people to back away from the "I've played 8-10 TF courses and now I will broad brush all my comments to his entire portfolio," when specific courses of distinction are brought into the picture. Unfortunately, there are people, as Tommy W so accurately stated, who prefer to target certain people for sainthood and others as the poster child for all that is wrong with design.

Eric T:

The reason why others have not attacked Tommy W for his comments / especially for his liking of the 11th green at Black Rock -- is that quite a few of those posters from years past are no longer active on GCA. Trust me -- certain people did bash Black Rock in general terms and a few of those honed in specifically on the 11th green. I'd be happy, when time allows, to pull from the past archives the comments that were made. Those arguing such a position really saw very little of quality from Engh's hands. Keep in mind these informed souls had only played 1 or 2 different Engh courses when making such sweeping statements.

What I meant originally is that I could play either a Tom Doak or Jim Engh layout -- the ones that are among their best in their respective portfolios and never feel shortchanged in any manner whatsoever. Clearly, they each demonstrate qualities that arrive at a final outcome through different interpretations. Both are rather fun and for me invigorating.

Terry Lavin:

In regards to Black Mesa -- long live your own ignorance.

George P:

In speaking about zombies -- geeze, I wonder where the first George Romeo movie on zombies was located. Does the name Pittsburgh ring a bell.

People can have preferences -- the issue is do they capacity to recognize greatness when it falls beyond their narrow ban of what constitutes grwat golf design. Some can -- many on this site don't. Like I said before -- some people are set for life with steak and potato meals -- nothing wrong with that but because of their self-imposed limits they will not allow the possibility that Thai, Indian, Lebanese or any other food can be that good, if not better, as well.

[George Pazin]

Okay, so I guess your open mind sees things this way:

If others don't care for something you feel is great, then they are closed minded, dogmatic, whatever. Because obviously if you feel something is great, it must be great by definition.

That's mighty open minded of you.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland B said, "Well pardner, any course rewards fine play."

Let me enlighten you since you seem a bit confused in your thinking ... I have played courses where fine play is not rewarded proportionally to the level of skill / execution demonstrated. On the flip side I have also played course where poor play is not penalized in the same manner. You make it sound axiomatic that such situations are part and parcel of all golf courses. Let me break this news flash to you in the event you've been in the dark closet for too long ... there are a horde of courses I have played where the basic fundamental premise of golf is not central to the design. In sum - such courses are flawed IMHO.

What I said with this thread is that the style / presentation / form of golf courses is quite elastic and if someone really has an "open" mind can easily appreciate such differences even though they may still have individualist preferences.
...

Sure you are not in politics Matt? You took my quote out of context, and then ignored the primary point of my post. First, I gave the reason that any course rewards fine as being any shot holed is rewarded. You happen to know any course where holed shots causes additional strokes to be added to your score?

The main point of my post was my disagreement with you on the worse the play the stronger the penalty should be. That sounds like (although you may not have intended it to) penal design with wonderful things like top-shot bunkers.

The other point of my original post was that Joshua Crane made a point of suggesting things that supported fairness. For example, there should not be side by side green side bunkers, because it would not be fair to allow one player to escape by ending up between them. Instead, both bunkers should be combined into one. Your fairly useless formulaic generalization of reward good, penalize bad in my inferences leads to the type of fairness that Joshua Crane advocated.

Furthermore, I would point out the contradiction between labelling a thread with "open mind" and then giving a prescription for what is good and what is bad, i.e., reward good, penalize bad.

So pardner, if you wish to discuss my logic and reasoning, fine. But if you wish to bash what you don't understand as above, then many happy trails to you, and goodbye.

[Jason Topp]

Jason T:

Be curious to know if you have courses that you really like that would fall just outside of your personal comfort zone (see your definition of "high quality")?

If you could name a few of them I'd be interested to see what they are and how they stack up against other courses that are on your short list of solid greatness as per your own definition.

Great courses I have played

1.  Sand Hills
2.  Royal Melbourne West
3.  Ballybunion
4.  Lahinch
5.  Kingston Heath

Courses I really enjoy that fall short of my definition:

1.  TPC Sawgrass 
2.  PGA West
3.  Shadow Creek
4.  Hazeltine

[Doug Ralston]

...
And please consider the possibility that opinions other than yours may still be backed with insight. I know how hard that will be for you.

Doug

You know nothing! And you should cut the crap.

I simply suggest he think about why he scored a personal best at the Links of ND to perhaps understand why scores on links courses of the British Open are sometimes high, although he seems not to recognize that often they are low, just like his score at the Links of ND.

And Garland;

What I was saying is that Moe was judging nothing based on his score. If you read the article I posted, then I suggest you go to GKL and read the entire many years of reports he and Ron Watterson have written in the 'Travel' section. You will see that, in the nature of how they tell of their travels, they usually talk about their scores, laugh about their small wagers and big disasters. But aside they judge courses never in context of score. Those scores were given by Moe in what you read, for general entertainment.

Moe definitely has his own ideas about what he likes in architecture, and why. They will be no one elses. But they are not ill thought out, nor are they part of any bias formed by groups he associates with.

Yours, on the other hand, may be. I do not know, because I have read so much less by you, and never have met you. As you are so willing to twist what you read to conduce to your pre-suppositions, I am unsurprised you needed to slap at me. Tough!

But no dogma have I. And you cannot pick it out.

As for 'knowing nothing', I am quite unimpressed with the 'something' you seem to think you 'know'. But I was not talking in this thread about experience. I was talking about insight. Many have it. And much as you obviously hate that, it doesn't alway end where YOU want it to. Live with it!

Doug

PS: Garland, lack of experience on 'the great courses' does not disqualify me from expressing my insights here either. Nor does your attitude. Only Ran can do that. Ask him to if you like. 

[Garland Bayley]

Doug,

Your bud wrote, "At least my 94 helped me decide not to go to Scotland, and also to understand why the pros are seldom under par at the British Open." Ignore the 94 score. It got repeated simply because it was part of the sentence he wrote.

Do you believe "the pros are seldom under par at the British Open"? Do you think it is insightful to write that? We're dealing with facts here, so your opinion of what I may be thinking and how hard it would be for me to change is not relevant.

As for you knowing nothing, you have to be capable of following context and its implications. You wrote, "I know" and than made a statement about what you "believe" (not know) you think about me. I point out that you know nothing about me and to assert so is crap. You think that fact is a slap, while apparently asserting certain things will be hard for me is not thought by you to be a slap.

Do you comprehend what I am saying? Or, are you letting your emotions get in the way? Or, am I just a lousy writer (I know I tend to too much brevity)?

[Adam Sherer]

I think you can like two different styles of designers. Because ultimately you decide what courses you like by whether or not you enjoyed your time spent on the course in question. On some courses I spend too much time spotting features and routings that I don't like and not enough time actually enjoying the round, thus detracting from my overall impression of the course and its designer.

One of my favorite courses that I have played over the last few years is Lighthouse Sound in Maryland. It is an Arthur Hills course and I rode a cart every time I played. But, the scenery is pretty spectacular and I always played with good friends and always enjoyed the rounds (all comped which I'm sure also helps my impression).
Lighthouse Sound (and Art Hills as a designer) is more aligned to a cookie cutter Fazio or Nicklaus course which I will be the first to pass on in preference of a classic or a minimalist course.

I think some courses are just so over-the-top in shaping, extraneous routing, and simplistic cookie cutter features, that one cannot focus on the enjoyment of the round. If this means that certain designers are stereotyped and put into a mold of "golf course styles that I don't like" than so be it.

At the same time, not every course done by the "preferred" architects are enjoyable and sacred from scrutiny. With that said, what makes Doak, Hanse, C&C, et. al. so talented is that the majority of their courses allow you to focus on the intrinsic enjoyment of playing golf.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

In looking at your listing -- it seems the "preferred" are those that are old time layouts (save for Sand Hills) and those falling outside your "preferred" category are relatively new designs or those that have been substanially updated / modenized (e.g. Hazeltine National).

Be curious if you played a combination of Doak / Engh courses and if you have thoughts on how they stack up / contrast, etc, etc.

Thanks ...

Garland B:

It would be a shame to see you walk away -- but the doors always there if you choose to use it.

Garland, please help me stop shaking my head with utter bewilderment when you state that "any course rewards fine ___ (I'm assume you meant to add the word - play) as being any shot holed is rewarded." Really? Allow me to help you with your own confusion on what I originally posted.

The reward / penalty dynamic, IMHO, is central and cuts to the core of what ANY golf design of merit will have. Got it. I'll repeat in the event you missed what I just said ... any golf design of merit.

Whether a course is from Engh, Doak, Harbottle, Tillinghast, etc, etc. They can feature tremendously different styles, accentuate vastly different strategic elements and provide for an overall "look" tied centrally to its creator vision. Holing out is part and parcel of the game -- it was not about what I stated -- you were the one who threw that element into the discussion.

Let me point out AGAIN - I've played a number of courses in a lifetime to see how such varied design styles can forget or fail to include a meaningful tie to the elements of reward / penalty in all aspects of the design. I've played courses where the difficulty dynamic went through the roof but the wherewithal for real rewards was so limited as to render the course itself nearly unplayable. On the flip side -- I've played courses where no real differentiation exists for any shots executed.

In sum, I've never played a course of any quality whereby the reward / penalty dynamic is not at play on a consistent basis. Unfortunately, you take the word penalty and then apply some draconian result. Let me point out that a "penalty" can be as slight as a more demanding angle into the putting surface because of where one's tee shot finished as opposed to another player who landed on the more preferrred side. Rewards / penalities can often be of a subtle nature and they need not be as harsh as completely one way or the other.

Garland, another fumble on your part. Please nuff of the qualifiers when you say "sounds like" (there was no desire on my part for any such linkage to the penal school of thought), unfortunately you continue to keep saying it again and again and again. Quality design rewards / penalizes players in proportion to the level of execution exhibited by the player. It is axiomatic of the game -- if you think otherwise so be it.

The point of this thread - you may wish to go back to the first post for clarification -- was to point out that different architects provide for their own interpretation on what constitutes quality golf design. I never said people could not have preferences -- I just questioned whether people can seriously appreciate the styles of others even when such styles fly in the face of what they individually may prefer. There have been people on GCA who catcall the works of certain designers like Fazio, Rees Jones and Nicklaus, to name just three, often because their work (which many times the people bitching and moaning have only personally played a very, very small handful, I might add) because the style / final product is contrary to the narrow particular style they prefer. Do they in fact really have an open mind? Candidly, I'd have to say they don't.
 
I said this before there are people in this world who will only eat steak and potato meals -- nothing wrong with that. However, if the taste buds are that narrow then they really don't know what superb Thai, Indian, Lebanese, or other food contributions, can be like. If such people with limited taste buds (and that includes the golf taste buds) wish to keep to their respective narrow range of preferences -- that's fine with me.

Let's not call such folks open minded in terms of accepting other styles / designs, etc, etc.

George P said ...

"If others don't care for something you feel is great, then they are closed minded, dogmatic, whatever. Because obviously if you feel something is great, it must be great by definition."

Wrongo !

People can most certainly see other courses as being great. It's a free country. Since this is also a chat site it's important to point out that people are free to disagree and can do so passionately -- whether people have opinions of my comments or vice versa. The problem is it's OK for you and others to bark about what I say but when the challenge comes from the different direction I get accused of being arrogant or some such other tag line.

I salute people in having their own preferences but they should not show outright bias or even at times contempt for other design styles that are indeed well done but are not aligned to their narrow focus point on what constitutes superior golf.  

I said this at the outset -- I see Doak / Engh as a great contrast and could very easily play both styles of golf designs over and over again from the finest works I have played from both men. Both are extremely talented and both create courses of immense contrasting styles / presentations. I also see the reality from some of the more dogmatic souls on this site that a particular style / presentation is the only true path to design greatness. If you see such folks as open minded so be it.

[Kalen Braley]

I have played courses from both and I find both styles fun to play even if they d0 accomplish "fun" in different ways.

To me, its all about a course gaining and holding on to your interest.  Whether this be by:

Observing how the course ties into nature.
Being given options on how to play a hole.
Trying to figure out how to 2 putt a wild green, or chip it close.
Taking in any aesthetically pleasing views.
Variety in the hole presentation and club selection required.
Or anything else unique, different, odd, unusal, or otherwise quirky.

Now that you know my interests, each of you have to figure out what blows your hair back and go for that.

Where I would differ from Matt is, if you don't like a particular style that one architect builds, by all means don't play it or any of his work.  Feel free to critize it.  Being open-minded only means that you will consider new things, not that you neccessarily have to like them once you've tasted.  But in the end, you gotta figure it out for yourself and try to go in with as much objectivity as possible!

For the record Matt, I do love Thai and Indian food though...   

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

Well said.

Agreed, keeping an open mind does mean you'll consider new things but far too often what happens -- as I've witnessed on this site -- is that someone will play one particular type of course (either from a certain architect or from an area of the country) and then lay down some wide sweeping thoughts on the topic in question. From that point forward the issue is always resolved back to the original statement.

Kalen, you're right - one doesn't have to like something but if you never really expose yourself to it then it's clear the person in question is limiting themselves and by all rights is close minded.

Quick question - when you recommend courses to other players do you recommend courses closest to your personal prference or do you provide for a much more unique offerings of contrasting styles / designs, etc, etc?

By the way --  since I frequently travel I'm always open to any thoughts on superb Thai / Indian food locations throughout the USA !

[Phil Benedict]

I'm a bit late to the party but I think that greatness can accomodate a variety of architectural styles but the common thread is great shot values.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

Its very likely that I do recommend courses in large part based on my previously stated reasons.  That being said there are few courses that I despise or generally otherwise avoid.  In general, I usually try to size up a course based on how interesting it is, how reasonable the green fee is and then come up with a value rating of sorts.  I'm also lover of quirk on the course and love to see new things, so that plays in as well.

As for Thai/Indian food, if you are ever in the Spokane or SLC areas, I can give you some great recommendations!!   

[Joe Hancock]

Matt,

First things first, I get a 50% cut right off the top, plus expenses....

We're going to start a new business, modeled after the Richard Petty Driving School. It will be the Matt Ward School of Golf Course Architecture. It will be held at various courses around the world, and  the venues will be chosen based on different styles to ensure proper exposure to the students.

It will start with some classroom time, to make sure everyone understands what you're trying to teach them. Then we will take the attendees out for a round of golf. Of course, they will move up a set of tees or two, as they are not capable of handling the big boy tees. As they play each venue, you will be available to explain to each attendee what they should or should not like about each hole or feature. There can even be a Q & A time to allow the students to ask you what they did or didn't like. It will accomplish what you are striving for....exposure to different styles for the golfers.....yet leave your opportunity to tell each student why they are wrong intact. I think it's brilliant!

Plus, we get paid for it instead of sitting on our asses in a recliner, typing on a laptop computer for free....

 

[Matt_Ward]

Joe:

I'll give you much more than 50% -- provided you do on-site tours with the groups! By the way, I'll even send you a pair of ear muffs because it's likely you get an ear-full from the same whiners and barkers who will piss and moan through all the so-called "archi-torture" they will need to endure.

You didn't think you'd get paid a cent just for the idea. C'mon Joe -- that'd be too E-Z.

When these same "open-mined" types get to a TF or JN course you can be sure the hollering will start up in earnest ! Heck, I can't convince them here -- being stuck with some of these folks for four hours on a course requires someone light years beyond me.
 
You see Joe -- water can make it's way through concrete -- eventually. With some of these "near certain" types I'm not so sure. 

[Pete Lavallee]

Matt,

Your rant is getting very tired, all we really know is that there are some folks on here who don't like Thai or Indian food; are you tired of eating alone?

It's time to name names, please tell us who these GCA'ers are who are sooooo dogmatic. They're big boys they can take it.  If your afraid to out them on a public forum just give us their initials. I doubt you can come up with more tham 15 names or initials, which would be exactly 1% of this Discussion Group.

Let's Cowboy Up Partner!

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

If you don't like the rant -- do like they do on radio -- flip the station.

In regards to food choices -- I eat with many people who have open minds on the subject. Hey cowboy -- if you simply prefer beef that's fine with me.

If you have been anything close to a follower of GCA over the years you will clearly see -- or should see if your eyes / ears are open -- to the constant affection for certain types of designers and the courses they produce.

Nothing wrong with people having their own preferences.

Unfortunately, a number of these same people play a very tiny percentage of other designers works (if they do at all) and then proclaim that these folks "don't get it" and that whatever else they design or have designed, is really a waste of time and attention.

The total number of actual people is far more than you think and the total number of posts proclaiming that there is a "one best way to design golf courses" is also fairly obvious if you've been paying any attention at all.

I mentioned at the outset of this thread that I very much enjoy playing specific Doak / Engh layouts. Both are very talented and both employ a very different, yet creative, hand in designing a good smattering of stellar courses. I simply asked if people really have an open mind in trying other types of courses. A good number of people do keep their options open and that's good to know.

My "rant" is simply to lay out the proposition that stellar golf can come from more than just the elite few.

End of story ...