[Niall C]

Bob

Invariably I tend to post while on the run which sometimes means my posts can be a bit garbled. What I was trying to articulate was that if you are used to fast and firm you are looking for the way the ball is going to react when it lands, you are expecting the run and fact that the ball will follow the contours. If you hit skanky low runners like I sometimes do, OK often do, then the roll is quite important. On a macro level you are looking at the general fall in the fairway, at a micro level you are thinking about how much a particular pot bunker or hollow gathers the ball. In a first play I would certainly hope I would be able to easily judge the macro but it might take a few plays to fully appreciate the micro. Hmm....not sure I've explained it any better second time round but there you go.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jed:

I would be the last one to bank on the majority of golfers at Old Macdonald wanting to "dig deeper."  But the real metric is whether people have fun and want to play it again.  You don't really have to understand it all in order to appreciate it ... if you did, then golf architects would all be out of business.  (If we aren't already.)  

Tom Doak, I think your point, which I bolded above is THE critical issue for every golf course.
As I've always maintained, my critical test is, do I want to go straight from the 18th green, back to the first tee.

Encountering a challenge that's a "fun" test is what makes for a great golf course.

And I agree, you DON'T have to understand WHY it was a fun challenge.
Many people are content with just "the fun challenge"
Others, like many of those on this site, may want to dig deeper and explore the components, the whys and wherefors, of the crafted test that's fun to meet

But, after the round golf courses don't require a written essay/test in order to justify why you enjoyed playing the course.
Repeat play is the equivalent of that essay/test.

Many on this site tend to focus on the individual aspects or the component pieces of the architecture, while the GOLFER seems to focus on the challenge of getting the ball from tee to hole, 18 times.  The GOLFER is more focused on play rather than analysis.

If a golfer walks off of the 18th green at "Olde Macdonald" and wonders if he has the time to have a bite and head back to the first tee, what difference does the analysis of the configuration of the features and the spatial relationship of the features matter to him ?

It doesn't.
He only knows that he was challenged, that he had fun and that he wants to do it again.
That's what the retail golfer craves.

It's the ilk of those on this site that want more in the way of analysis.

One doesn't need any post round analysis in order to enjoy playing a golf course

P.S.  Friends of mine are going to Bandon in July and I told them NOT to miss OM.
       I'll be anxious to hear their comments.

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course ?

If this had been entirely MY concept, and not instigated by Mr. Keiser, then I might have worried a bit more about whether I thought it would succeed.  But, I would say that he has had far more success in the retail golf market than most people [present company included], so I didn't worry about it for long.

Or are you asking whether we should have built the dumbed-down template version of Macdonald's work, instead of the more complicated version?  Perhaps that's a valid question; but if he wanted that, then he definitely hired the wrong guys!

[John Moore II]

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course ?[/b][/size][/color]

Yes, but they can't be wide just for the sake of being wide. They must be wide and provide multiple options for playing the hole. If the fairway is basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side or strategy, etc., then it will still be boring for the better player after a few plays. Same as a tight fairway with only one option will be basically unplayable for an average or 'bad' player after one or two plays. Width must also have the strategic elements to go with it, otherwise its pointless.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course ?[/b][/size][/color]

Yes, but they can't be wide just for the sake of being wide. They must be wide and provide multiple options for playing the hole. If the fairway is basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side or strategy, etc., then it will still be boring

for the better player 

after a few plays. Same as a tight fairway with only one option will be basically unplayable for an average or 'bad' player after one or two plays. Width must also have the strategic elements to go with it, otherwise its pointless.

John K.:

Note my highlight of your quote.  "The better player" is not necessarily the guy who pays the bills.  It's entirely possible that better players will dismiss a course for being too wide open, but the other 80-90% of golfers will find that to be their favorite.  National Golf Links is a great example of this ... I have heard some great players disparage it after a single visit and express no interest in returning there, yet it is immensely popular in other circles.

[John Moore II]

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course ?[/b][/size][/color]

Yes, but they can't be wide just for the sake of being wide. They must be wide and provide multiple options for playing the hole. If the fairway is basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side or strategy, etc., then it will still be boring

for the better player 

after a few plays. Same as a tight fairway with only one option will be basically unplayable for an average or 'bad' player after one or two plays. Width must also have the strategic elements to go with it, otherwise its pointless.

John K.:

Note my highlight of your quote.  "The better player" is not necessarily the guy who pays the bills.  It's entirely possible that better players will dismiss a course for being too wide open, but the other 80-90% of golfers will find that to be their favorite.  National Golf Links is a great example of this ... I have heard some great players disparage it after a single visit and express no interest in returning there, yet it is immensely popular in other circles.

I agree with what you say 100% Tom. I was only addressing Pat since he seems to take another opinion on the matter. Somehow, I find that he and I usually come down on opposite sides of the issues.

I think the better players will often times dismiss the course as being too open because they don't see the different ways to play a hole. They may not see all the angles because they think only in the airborne game, rather than trying to imagine what might happen on the ground. This is a product of American golf where we typically play in calm winds. Playing golf in a 25-30 mph wind will open eyes rather quickly to additional options around the course, especially those options involving keeping the ball low to the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course ?[/b][/size][/color]

Yes, but they can't be wide just for the sake of being wide.

What does, "being wide for the sake of being wide" mean ?
Can you name 10 fairways that are wide for the sake of being wide ?
And, what's the practical/effective difference ?


They must be wide and provide multiple options for playing the hole.

Isn't that an inherent quality/aspect of width ?

If the fairway is basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side or strategy, etc., then it will still be boring
for the better player after a few plays. 

That's a function of the green, not width.

Can you name ten holes that are, "basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side of strategy" ?

Same as a tight fairway with only one option will be basically unplayable for an average or 'bad' player after one or two plays. Width must also have the strategic elements to go with it, otherwise its pointless.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was only addressing Pat since he seems to take another opinion on the matter. Somehow, I find that he and I usually come down on opposite sides of the issues.

That's usually an indicator that I'm right.

I think the better players will often times dismiss the course as being too open because they don't see the different ways to play a hole.
That's a failure on the part of the better player, not the golf course or width of the golf course.

They may not see all the angles because they think only in the airborne game,

That's not it at all.  And, in fact, 99 % of the golfing world thinks in terms of the airborne game.
The ground game is, in most cases a universal myth.
The problem with the better player lies more in their narrow focus on JUST THEIR game and not the games of others.

One of the neatest schematics I've seen is a schematic of NGLA showing different playing corridors for the better and less than superior player.
It illustrates perfectly, the various routes golfers can take in their attempt to best challenge the golf course based on their abilities.

rather than trying to imagine what might happen on the ground.

Bad things are often more likely to happen on the ground.
The aerial route is THE preferred route.

This is a product of American golf where we typically play in calm winds.

That's another myth.
NGLA, with its wide fairways doesn't typically play in calm winds, yet the aerial game is THE prefered game.
The same for Sebonack, Southampton and Shinnecock

The ground game has its place, but, percentile wise, it's not substantive.

There's something you may not be aware of.
When you're playing golf in America, you can't fantasize that you're playing in the UK.
You are where you are and you have to play where you are, and not at some course and conditions that are a figment of your imagination.
That may work with sex, but, it doesn't work with golf

Playing golf in a 25-30 mph wind will open eyes rather quickly to additional options around the course, especially those options involving keeping the ball low to the ground.

Another fallacy.
What percentage of rounds are played in 25-30 mph winds ?

[John Moore II]

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course?

Can you name ten holes that are, "basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side of strategy" ?

Yes, I could name ten holes, but it would be pointless since you likely would have never played them. They're all on bad golf courses which is pretty much the point of my making the statement. No good golf course is going to have a hole as I described, but bad ones might. And thats the point. The courses are bad because they have width simply because the width is there, not for any real purpose.

[John Moore II]

I was only addressing Pat since he seems to take another opinion on the matter. Somehow, I find that he and I usually come down on opposite sides of the issues.

That's usually an indicator that I'm right.

Or that I say you're wrong and I'm right

I think the better players will often times dismiss the course as being too open because they don't see the different ways to play a hole.
That's a failure on the part of the better player, not the golf course or width of the golf course.

They may not see all the angles because they think only in the airborne game,

That's not it at all.  And, in fact, 99 % of the golfing world thinks in terms of the airborne game.
The ground game is, in most cases a universal myth.
The problem with the better player lies more in their narrow focus on JUST THEIR game and not the games of others.

We're trying to say the same thing using different words.

One of the neatest schematics I've seen is a schematic of NGLA showing different playing corridors for the better and less than superior player.
It illustrates perfectly, the various routes golfers can take in their attempt to best challenge the golf course based on their abilities.

rather than trying to imagine what might happen on the ground.

Bad things are often more likely to happen on the ground.
The aerial route is THE preferred route.

This is a product of American golf where we typically play in calm winds.

That's another myth.
NGLA, with its wide fairways doesn't typically play in calm winds, yet the aerial game is THE prefered game.
The same for Sebonack, Southampton and Shinnecock

The ground game has its place, but, percentile wise, it's not substantive.

There's something you may not be aware of.
When you're playing golf in America, you can't fantasize that you're playing in the UK.
You are where you are and you have to play where you are, and not at some course and conditions that are a figment of your imagination.
That may work with sex, but, it doesn't work with golf

Playing golf in a 25-30 mph wind will open eyes rather quickly to additional options around the course, especially those options involving keeping the ball low to the ground.

Another fallacy.
What percentage of rounds are played in 25-30 mph winds ?


Depends on where you live. When I lived on the coast of North Carolina, if you played near the ocean after about 2pm, there's a good chance that all of your rounds were played in 20+ mph winds. In Pinehurst, you'll rarely play in strong winds

[Tom_Doak]

Another fallacy.
What percentage of rounds are played in 25-30 mph winds ?
[/b][/color]

Pat:

Actually, in Bandon, it's a reasonably high percentage ... maybe 20-25%.  It is the one place in America where you don't have to fantasize about using the ground game some of the time, and we've tried harder on this course to make it a reality on a few of the holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course?

Can you name ten holes that are, "basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side of strategy" ?

Yes, I could name ten holes, but it would be pointless since you likely would have never played them. They're all on bad golf courses which is pretty much the point of my making the statement. No good golf course is going to have a hole as I described, but bad ones might. And thats the point. The courses are bad because they have width simply because the width is there, not for any real purpose.


WHY would an architect create width without purpose ?

The only thing that does is increase the maintainance budget.[/b][/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Another fallacy.
What percentage of rounds are played in 25-30 mph winds ?
[/b][/color]

Pat:

Actually, in Bandon, it's a reasonably high percentage ... maybe 20-25%.  

That's one course amongst thousands, and hardly representative of the usual conditions for golf in America.
The conditions at Bandon probably represent less then one tenth of one percent of the usual conditions for golf in America.

It is the one place in America where you don't have to fantasize about using the ground game some of the time, and we've tried harder on this course to make it a reality on a few of the holes.

Agreed, you benefited from a windy site, as do the golfers who trod those fairways.
I think it's part of the lure at Bandon, and as you know, WIND adds a special and unique element to those playing golf in America.

We also know that the rounds played at Bandon are NOT generally representative of the conditions affecting rounds in the U.S. ?
They're the great exception, due to the uniqueness of the site ?

Are there any other great coastal sites between Bandon and North Bend ?

A little North of North Bend ?

[John Moore II]

P.S.S  Are WIDE fairways the critical feature necessary for UNIVERSAL enjoyment of a golf course?

Can you name ten holes that are, "basically a field with a green at the end, with no preferred side of strategy" ?

Yes, I could name ten holes, but it would be pointless since you likely would have never played them. They're all on bad golf courses which is pretty much the point of my making the statement. No good golf course is going to have a hole as I described, but bad ones might. And thats the point. The courses are bad because they have width simply because the width is there, not for any real purpose.


WHY would an architect create width without purpose ?

The only thing that does is increase the maintainance budget.[/b][/color]

I don't know why they did it. Like I said, these are bad golf courses, Doak 1's and 0's I'm talking about. They're simply poor designs. Can't you just accept that some courses suck? Or are you so insulated by your little world of high-end private courses that you have forgotten that bad golf really does exist in places?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If they exist why are you so reluctant to identify them and the holes with unwarranted width with no advantage in taking a specific line ?

Could it be that they're a figment of your imagination or that they aren't designed as you've deigned ?

Please identify 10 holes that have enormous width with NO advantage in taking a particular line, irrespective of where the hole is located.

[John Moore II]

If they exist why are you so reluctant to identify them and the holes with unwarranted width with no advantage in taking a specific line ?

Could it be that they're a figment of your imagination or that they aren't designed as you've deigned ?

Please identify 10 holes that have enormous width with NO advantage in taking a particular line, irrespective of where the hole is located.

OK, let me give this a shot. I may not be able to name ten, I don't know, but I'll play your game. And if you've played 3 of the holes I mention, I'll kiss your ass if we ever meet.

#13 Rockfish Golf Club- Wallace, NC
#1 Duplin Country Club-Kenansville, NC
#4 and #16 Rock Creek Country Club-Richlands, NC
#8 Coharie Country Club-Clinton, NC
#7 Star Hill Golf Club (Pines Course)- Cape Carteret, NC
#11 Silver Creek Golf Club- Cape Certeret, NC
#8 Lexington Golf Club- Lexington, NC

OK, you got me. I can only name eight. However, I will say that there are some pretty bad courses that I've played only once and I can't really remember the holes. All of these courses I've played at least 5 times. In my opinion, the best of these courses I've named is Silver Creek and I would only give that one a 3, the rest are 2's at best, with most being 1's. And in this same sense, I can think of another course, The Links at Plantation Harbor, where there is almost no strategy at all off the tee or into the green beyond dodging ponds and ditches; and thats why that course gets a very low 1 rating, and if they ever finish the housing development around it, that will likely fall to a 0.

[Jed Rammell]

John -

I have zero desire to jump in on the the pissing match, but I grew up in Rexburg. The 6th is a par 3, the 15th is a narrow par 5. If you are thinking of the 7th hole (wide open par 4), it is one of the best uses of width I have ever seen.

[John Moore II]

John -

I have zero desire to jump in on the the pissing match, but I grew up in Rexburg. The 6th is a par 3, the 15th is a narrow par 5. If you are thinking of the 7th hole (wide open par 4), it is one of the best uses of width I have ever seen.

Hmm. Its certainly 15 I am thinking of, par 5 with the green on the opposite side of the river. I always remembered it as being a wide hole, mainly because I hit a huge slice off the tee and barely made it into the right hand rough. Still hit the green in two. Either way, the river is the only defense because no matter what side of the fairway you are on, the angle is no better for the most part.

[Jed Rammell]

John -

I have zero desire to jump in on the the pissing match, but I grew up in Rexburg. The 6th is a par 3, the 15th is a narrow par 5. If you are thinking of the 7th hole (wide open par 4), it is one of the best uses of width I have ever seen.

Hmm. Its certainly 15 I am thinking of, par 5 with the green on the opposite side of the river. I always remembered it as being a wide hole, mainly because I hit a huge slice off the tee and barely made it into the right hand rough. Still hit the green in two. Either way, the river is the only defense because no matter what side of the fairway you are on, the angle is no better for the most part.

Gotcha - the hole has out of bounds left and a hazard down the right. I've never heard it described as wide, thus the confusion.

[John Moore II]

John -

I have zero desire to jump in on the the pissing match, but I grew up in Rexburg. The 6th is a par 3, the 15th is a narrow par 5. If you are thinking of the 7th hole (wide open par 4), it is one of the best uses of width I have ever seen.

Hmm. Its certainly 15 I am thinking of, par 5 with the green on the opposite side of the river. I always remembered it as being a wide hole, mainly because I hit a huge slice off the tee and barely made it into the right hand rough. Still hit the green in two. Either way, the river is the only defense because no matter what side of the fairway you are on, the angle is no better for the most part.

Gotcha - the hole has out of bounds left and a hazard down the right. I've never heard it described as wide, thus the confusion.

From the OB left to the hazard/treeline right is probably 75 yards I think. Thats rather wide by my thinking. Agree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

John -

I have zero desire to jump in on the the pissing match, but I grew up in Rexburg. The 6th is a par 3, the 15th is a narrow par 5. If you are thinking of the 7th hole (wide open par 4), it is one of the best uses of width I have ever seen.

JKM,

If you got this hole wrong, how can I give any credibility to the other 8 holes you listed.

Jed describes the 15th as NARROW.  You say it's wide.
Jed grew up there, you played it once and can barely remember which hole is which.

Please come back when you understand the difference between "narrow" and "wide" and when you can list 10 holes which meet your criterion.

[John Moore II]

Pat, you wouldn't have given credibility to anything I said regardless of facts, just because thats how you are. You're argue with a fence post and punch it because it wouldn't argue back. I guess I actually give you what you want by doing this. How about we wait until Jed comes back with how wide he thinks the hole is. I hit a huge slice off that tee and I still had a clear shot to the green. That hole it at least 75 yards wide and some of the ones I listed are wider than that. And I know the difference between wide and narrow, jackass.

And answer one question: Have you ever played any of the holes I mention? If not, then how can you comment on what I know? Be like me questioning your judgement about NGLA or Shinnecock. I've never played them so you could tell me they're both pieces of crap not worth seeing and without another opinion, I can't really say you're wrong. I really wonder if ANYONE on this site has played those courses I list.

[Jed Rammell]

According to google maps by my best estimation, ob to hazard is 50 yards. But that is a very different number than the fairway width, which is in the ballpark of 30 yards. Regardless of the width, I'm not sure this is a good hole for your argument. It is a 500 yard par 5 with water guarding the green. Most players cannot get home in 2 shots, so they must make a decision on the tee . . . do they hit driver, 8 iron, sand wedge; or 5 iron, 7 iron, 9 iron? If a player hits 5 iron, trees pinch off the landing area (which is only 10 yards wide). When you hit driver, you chose to challenge the trees on the left and hazard on the right. By doing this, you avoided the narrowest part of the hole. The hole's strategy may not be based on fairway width, but that doesn't mean it is lacking in strategy.

[John Moore II]

Jed, ok, fine.   I'll take that one off my list. And Pat can still kiss my white arse. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you wouldn't have given credibility to anything I said regardless of facts, just because thats how you are.

JKM,

That's not true.
You're the one who wants to argue with me, you admitted same to Tom Doak.

I made a statement, you refuted it, I asked you to provide 10 examples, you declined, I asked you again, you provided an abbreviated list, and in your list a well informed participant indicated that your facts were wrong.

Maybe there's a reason I'm not so quick to accept your statements as "The Gospel"
False in one, false in many.

You want us to accept your word/position as fact without the appropriate supporting facts, while at the same time trying to deflect/deny your error/omission by blaming me for not accepting your word. 

That's quite funny.

You're argue with a fence post and punch it because it wouldn't argue back.
I guess I actually give you what you want by doing this.
How about we wait until Jed comes back with how wide he thinks the hole is.
I hit a huge slice off that tee and I still had a clear shot to the green.
That hole it at least 75 yards wide and some of the ones I listed are wider than that.
And I know the difference between wide and narrow, jackass.

Evidently, you don't.
In fact, you don't even know what hole it was.

You tried to list a few holes thinking I wouldn't know anything about them and you got caught in your error by an innocent bystander, not me.

And now, pulling a defensive, hostile attitude because you either made a mistake or got caught mistating the facts.

And, to make matter worse, you disengenuously edited your post and eliminated the hole you cited at Rexburg.
Why would you do that if you were certain you were correct ?

You wanted to disagree with me, got burned, tried to remove the evidence and got caught again.

You tell me who's being honest and above board, you or me ? 

And answer one question: Have you ever played any of the holes I mention? If not, then how can you comment on what I know?
It's really very simple.  You've made a statement of "fact" regarding the width of the fairway.  You stated it's 70 yards wide.
You didn't make a statement of how the hole plays.
You made a statement regarding the dimension of the fairway, claiming it was 70 yards wide.
You're wrong, your facts are wrong and your subsequent defensive temper tantrum because YOU'RE WRONG doesn't phase me.
Just go to "Google Earth" and you can see the fairway on the hole in question and it's NOWHERE near 70 yards wide.
You wanted to argue, got your FACTS WRONG, got caught and are now trying to cover your tracks vis a vis a temper tantrum.
Try it with somebody who cares, I don't.  I just know that in the future, when you present something as fact, that I'll have to view your statements with a sense of enlightened suspicion.

Be like me questioning your judgement about NGLA or Shinnecock.
I've never played them so you could tell me they're both pieces of crap not worth seeing and without another opinion, I can't really say you're wrong. I really wonder if ANYONE on this site has played those courses I list.

Nice try, but that wasn't the issue.
This wasn't a case of subjective analysis related to play and opinion.
It was an objective analysis dealing with width.
You said the hole was wide and lousy, citing fairway width at 70 yards, which is certainly very wide.
Only it turns out that a fellow who grew up in Rexburg, who's apparently far more familiar with the course than you, refuted your contention and I looked it up on Google Earth, and determined that he's right and you're wrong.

But, now you throw a hissy fit, a temper tantrum because you got caught trying to bluff your way to victory on an argument you chose to start.

Next time pick a topic that you're familiar with where you can make accurate statements without fear of refutation.

[John Moore II]

Pat-I admitted I was wrong, and I even admitted in my first post that I had only played there once. I will also admit that I don't know exactly, to a yard how wide these fairways are. However, I do know they are 'wide' and that the side of the fairway played off the tee doesn't matter in how you will play the next shots. And I also admitted in another post that I was taking that course off my list, so now its down to 8. Had I gone hole by hole on every course I've ever played, I could probably come up with more, but in doing that, I would still not have made that first post.

 And I've admitted to many people that I enjoy our little green/red letter arguements. I think the high point of that was when we pretty much ran out of colors to use in responses. That was pretty classic. Simple fact is, I'm never going to convince you that you're wrong and you're never going to convince me you're right. But its still fun either way. I've probably learned and thought more about architecture in these feuds with you than I have in any other single way in my time on this site.

Oh, and somewhere deep inside, I think you probably enjoy it too, because I'm one of the few people who will stand toe to toe with you and consistently argue an opposing point of view until one of us just gets tired of posting.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()