Thank you very much for having me. My name is Vinnie Kmetz, 42, from Danbury, CT. My racket has always been golf service which has bestowed enough good fortune to play, compete and caddie thousands of rounds on the richly varied and architecturally significant courses of the Metropolitan NY region, especially those in the Fairfield-Westchester Co district. I have had many great experiences on Long Island as well - not as many in NJ, but hopefully I will as time allows.
Caddying the vast amount of rounds I have for all levels of player - from pros to professional duffers, and in between - and married with my own scrappy game, I've really gotten a first hand look at how difficult they have made golf for most of us. Given the "50s through Fazio" architectural era, and the disappointing substitution of uniform dense rough as the moder equivalent of the thankfully-disappearing tree, it's rare that you can go to a course of any repute and not expect to struggle if you cannot control your golf ball with the precision of a true 6 or 7 HCP.
From high-end daily fees, to the escalating and economically-stirred costs of country club membership, I cannot believe people pay for it. It seems like an un-fun drudgery; not to me mind you because I don't play at those places for my own golf and I rather enjoy caddie-coaching players to their best possible day on courses and sets of tees they should not be playing - for amusement's sake and enjoyment.
Well, you probably got some philosophy from me in that last bit - but if you didn't here are some FACTOIDS/PRINCIPLES/NOTICES about me, as relates to the architectural side of golf:
1. If I was entrusted with all the elements of design, I would never put a "Par" designation on any hole or the course itself. I would merely list the yardage of the hole from its various teeing grounds as well as the aggregate for Nines and Total. To me, no matter how you twist and turn, the standard for excellent play was, is and will always be "Level Fours." I don't know of anyone, except for National and Top Regional Championship competitors who have ever been displeased with a 72. Truth be told, if you shot four of 'em at WFW in 2006, you would've beat Oglivy by a shot, so it can apply in those echelons as well.
At match play, all I wish to do is match or better my opponents score. I couldn't care less if I made a 108 and he broke 90, as long as I was one up. At medal play, if I rationally assess what the Par for me is at the holes given the troubles and possibilities, then I can roughly predict my score, match it up to the competition, and see what I have to do. If I know i'm likely to have an 83 and the qualifying number is around 80, I've gotta to go for a little more. Conversely, I have to really stick to a conservative game plan if the qualifying or target number is closer to my assessed 83.
2. The Senate of Luck in Golf runs 50 Bad-49 Good with 1 abstention...better put, "Bad" is always 1up. I find the best courses run near that same ratio, but instead, "Good" is 1up.
3. My favorite architect is Raynor, but I will never tell you publicly what my favorite course is, so I just say CC of Fairfield because (even though it has the tension of RTJ work post-flood and early re-routings for change in clubhouse location) no one looks at your funny when you say it, so its believable. The other is so special and so correct, secluded and ignored, expertly cared for yet not over-maintained. It's gentle and amusing and it has always inspired my best golf. It's got a Redan and a Double Plateau, a short with a Bathtub depression, a Biarritz, a Prize Dog Leg that operates almost as a Double Fairway concept in execution. but i'll never tell.
4. The game that Golf is closest to, is Billiards. If a larger, ballroom-sized billiards table could be set up with 18 pockets, scattered on around its perimeter and the players had to work a cue with deft coordination and ball to the target in a sequence of 18, you might understand what I mean. I often tell struggling or disappointed golfers this during their round while caddying, trying to soothe them with the analogy that everyone knows how to play pool a little bit, everyone CAN play to some peer level when the opportunity comes up. But that doesn't mean you can compete with Willie Mosconi, So we shouldn't expect too much, especially on the difficult, heroic and penal conditions on popular or over-rated golf courses. I will ask, "You don't get mad when you play pool and you screw up a shot, do you? Well, you shouldn't in golf either?
5. WFEast is better than WFW; more variety, more different shapes and types of Par 3s, slightly more wind directions, varied shapes and pitch, roll and yaw of putting surfaces, every bit as challenging as the West yet more sublime and friendly. Outside of the great short Par 4 6th, every single one of the West greens is generally the same; a folding slice of triangular pizza as it is dripping into your mouth. The only difference from slice to slice is where your thumb and fingers are mounding the surface from underneath the slice. you can't miss on any side, but in front and there's too many aerial shots for those narrow "leaves." The East has three times as many running-available shots as the West wit haerial play rewarde and not always demanded. The 13th and 17th East holes (both carded as Par 3s) are the shortest Par 5s in the known pokey. 6s are a little grim and tedious on the West course, more amusing on the East. East gets it - hands-down.
Thanks for the forum
VK