[Rob Rigg]

Jim,

Once again you can't seem to grasp it - your comments on this thread are totally inappropriate - and now you are taking potshots at Garland? Nice one.

I have never received so many PMs from people asking - "Is this guy for real with what he is saying?" - it is comical. I guess all of them are being childish as well - right, boss?!?!?!

Keep rolling with the high and mighty lingo Jimbo.

Heading up to PR any time soon? So your comments about the course may actually hold some water?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Edit: deleted, no sense arguing, it's all too personal for you.

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

The ability to walk courses is more in the head and heart, than in the physique.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
I was only trying to inject some humor, I've never seen a photo of you .

Sorry if I offended you.

[Jordan Wall]

Rob,
I'm glad you realize that your remark, ..."for those who could not type www.palouseridge.com into their computer' was peevish in nature, but it's still rather childish of you to take it out on the golf course. Behavior like that surely diminishes your site, nothing else.

Jordan,

Do you ever walk when you play at PR? What percentage of golfers walk there if you had to guess?

I'd say it's about 50/50, as most college students walk.  I've never ridden the course myself, and never had a problem walking it either.

Do college players walk when they play tournaments at PR?

Always.

Have you played Tetherow? If so, how does the walk compare?

I have not played it.  The walk is comparable to Chambers Bay, if that gives you an idea.

I rated Tetherow a 2/4 or "Orange" for walkability but most probably think it is "Red" which is understandable. There are a few long treks between holes that interupt the flow of the round but I still think it is tough but worthwhile.

It looks like PR is challenged with some steep climbs and descents from G to T along with the big 9G to 10T walk, per Garland's review, which would definitely put it in the Orange/Red zone depending on the fitness of the golfer.

At Tetherow, the staff have really listened to walkers and tried to make helpful adjustments for 2009 where possible. There are still more walking paths that needed to be added but it is a good start.

Are PR thinking of doing the same where possible?

I don't think adjustments are being made one or the other.  I don't think the course needs to, as it does a fine job of accomodating both the walker and rider.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The walk is comparable to Chambers Bay, if that gives you an idea.
...

Jordan,

I walked and played Chambers Bay on a Thursday. Two days later, I walked and played Palouse Ridge. What you wrote above is one of the most deceptive statements I have ever read on this website.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Frankly, with property Harbottle had to work with, I think the course is plenty walkable.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as I can understand how you might see it differently.

However, I don't think that there aare any walkability issues that deteriorate from the quality of the course.

Take a look at Coz's assessment. #6 is one of the weakest holes on the course, and I agree with him on that. Are you saying that configuring #6 with Redan like characteristics using a tee near the 5th green, would not improve the course, and would not improve the walkability?

EDIT: Interestingly Coz deleted his statement about #6 on the Golfweek thread. Perhaps he did not want to agree with me on anything.

[Jordan Wall]

Garland,

Frankly, with property Harbottle had to work with, I think the course is plenty walkable.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as I can understand how you might see it differently.

However, I don't think that there aare any walkability issues that deteriorate from the quality of the course.

Take a look at Coz's assessment. #6 is one of the weakest holes on the course, and I agree with him on that. Are you saying that configuring #6 with Redan like characteristics using a tee near the 5th green, would not improve the course, and would not improve the walkability?

EDIT: Interestingly Coz deleted his statement about #6 on the Golfweek thread. Perhaps he did not want to agree with me on anything.

I don't think it would make the hole better, for a couple of reasons, though I do get what you are saying.

For one, the hole would be far too long.  From the back markers the hole is 260, and uphill that is just too much.  Also, from the middle markers, the hole is 200 and that would still be too long for those playing the white tees.

The hole would also need a more pronounced slope on the green for it to be a redan like hole, if the tees were lower.  I feel like the green would need to be wider as well, otherwise only a perfectly struck draw would avoid the bunkers.  Anything slightly long would go into what is currently the right greenside bunker, which is just about two feet away from the green anyways and gobbles up nearly everything.

On top of it all, I like the hole as it is.  Not to mention, I like the feel of standing on the tee and looking at the broad expanse in front of me.  And remember, the hill has to be climbed one way or anything, regardless of where the tees are.

[Garland Bayley]

....And remember, the hill has to be climbed one way or anything, regardless of where the tees are.

 
I am afraid college girls have you far too distracted.

You climb the hill to play down the hill now. If the tees are not on the hill, then you don't have to climb the hill at all!

When the course was built, the options on green position, green size, bunkering, etc. were all open! No one is suggesting the tees be moved down the hill to play the present hole in the present green! Design the course so that the tees are near the 5th green. Place the green somewhat near where it is now, it could play a bit like a Redan, which typically plays a little uphill so the green surface is hidden.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()