[Ed Oden]

Ed:

A couple of corrections -- my friend's mentioned Golfweek -- I didn't limit my comments to one pub alone. I also don't see how the split by Golfweek adds much given the findings they have generated -- my last count has 55 of their modern listings as being east of the Missisippi River. Just rate them all together -- let's see how Sand Hills fares against the other old time classic greats such as Winged Foot / West, Oakmont or Merion / East.

I also asked you -- if you rate for Golfweek? Why all the tapdance and the spin game of throwing it back to me. Simple question -- simple answer. If you don't wish to answer just say so.

Ed, the preponderance of the raters are east oriented and few really travel to see what is happening in the field -- the parochial grip is quite strong. I base that upon my own experiences and in having rated for 20+ years for different pubs. You are free to disagree and believe what you will.

Matt, as promised in my earlier post, I hereby offer my apologies if I misconstrued your words to be your own rather than those of your friends.  You see, its not so hard to admit when you are wrong. 

I will be happy to tell you whether or not I am a GW rater as soon as you tell me why that matters.  Remember, you are the one that stated it didn't matter.  I have not said anything positively or negatively about Golfweek's approach or their rankings or, for that matter, those of any of the other publications.  The ONLY thing I have said is that the theme you espoused in this thread (i.e., old line eastern courses being ranked ahead of newer west coast courses due to an east coast bias) can not possibly apply to Golfweek since old and new courses are not ranked on the same list.  That is not an opinion, it is a fact.  Your attempts to spin things otherwise are disappointing.

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

Thanks for your detailed comments.

I learn from what others say. Knowing if people actually rate gives me insight on whether they really understand golf courses -- ANY rater should be a few steps beyond the average Joe and Jane who play and love golf. If you are a rater then I would expect you have a good bit more awareness to the points I made originally. You can certainly still disagree with them but it helps me to understand if you are rater how much you do travel and if you travel beyond your immediate area.

Ed -- enough of the coy show -- a simple answer is exactly that -- simple. If you find it too complicated then do what you are doing -- punt the ball and don't answer it.

I have not spun anything -- GW has more courses from the east of the Mississippi than west on its modern list. On the classic side it's more top heavy but likely due to the fact that many of the old time courses from the past.

Golfweek doesn't need to separate the listing any longer. I see no purpose in that and if anything the findings are a bit predictable and show a lack of homework on a number of the modern courses from the west that are not rated at all.

[Ed Oden]

Matt, this is a common tactic of yours when someone points out your inaccuracies and inconsistencies:  Ask questions about their experience and background.  The underlying implication is that your experience is greater and your background is better so your opinions should carry more weight than theirs.  But here's the rub.  I haven't stated any opinions on this thread.  Rather, all I have done is note the factual impossibility that the hypothesis you submitted can apply to Golfweek's lists because old courses and new courses are not compared against each other.  So, for sake of argument, let's assume I've never set foot on a golf course in my life and don't know NGLA from the NTSB.  Or better yet, assume I am the most east coast biased, old line club loving, agenda driven person on the face of the earth.  None of it would make any difference since those things are irrelevant to the factual problem I have noted.

That being said, since you are so interested in me, I will be happy to tell you my life story and answer any questions you may have so that we can get to know each other better.  But I'll do so in IMs rather than in this thread because I doubt anyone else here cares. 

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

I'm not into "tactics" --

However, experiences do matter. Credentials count for something.

I also stated -- which you may have missed -- the fact that GW's separate listing makes no sense to me. Why not combine them to see how courses fare against one another? Again, my buds raised GW as their sole focus point -- mine is more than that.

Another thing I simply asked you a question -- you are the one who keeps playing the game of deflection and let's not answer. I know what I have played and I'm quite content with what I have personally had the opportunity to play. If you happen to be a rater what's the problem in simply answering the question? If you don't wish to answer simply say no. That's e-z enough isn't it?

Ed, when you want to have a discussion -- it involves a give and take. Try to do the former -- as much as you do the latter. If you want me to answer your questions try to do the same when asked sincerely.

Golfweek is not alone in its deficiency -- I mentioned the others. Too much of what calls itself ratings today is simply a reaffirmation of the same old places -- minus a few tweaks here or there. In the real time world we live today -- more info is passed and shared through sites like this one. The west has already passed the east in my mind -- too many of the courses that are rated in the east rely upon age / tradition and the others base their position on having held major events of one type or the other. The architecture in a number of instances is far from compelling in my mind.

[SL_Solow]

Matt,   How do you rate BelAire?  Is old line traditional bias a geographical phenomenon or something else?  Given the greater concentration of excellent old  line clubs east of the Missiissippi, one would expect a higher concentration of courses of value having that pedigree to be located in the east.  Is your argument really a suggestion that new architecture is underrated and therefore, regions with a greater percentage of "new" architecture are underrated?

[Ed Oden]

Matt, as mentioned in my prior post, I have sent you an IM answering all of your questions and then some.  If I've missed any of my "credentials", reply to me there and I will be happy to follow up - birth certificate, immunization records, personal references, you name it.  But it makes no sense to continue a back and forth here since each time I point out a purely factual matter you reply as if I was stating an opinion.  Its childish, really.

[JC Jones]

Matt, as mentioned in my prior post, I have sent you an IM answering all of your questions and then some.  If I've missed any of my "credentials", reply to me there and I will be happy to follow up - birth certificate, immunization records, personal references, you name it.  But it makes no sense to continue a back and forth here since each time I point out a purely factual matter you reply as if I was stating an opinion.  Its childish, really.

I don't know if you should disclose to Matt that you were actually born in Indonesia and are not a US citizen.

[Matt_Ward]

SL:

Yes, new architecture is underrated -- there are plenty of courses that are excellent from the likes of different architects. And that means more than just the groupie favs of Doak, C&C, Hanse, et al of this group. Rees Jones has done some excellent work -- see Olde Kinderhook in NY. Tom Fazio has done as well -- in a number of instances. So has Jack Nicklaus with Red Ledges, to name just one. There are also lesser name players such as Mike DeVries, Kyle Phillips, Baxter Spann, et al of this grouping. The idea that old is supreme is a myth -- no doubt there are legitimate ones but frankly the idea that the current group of architects today "doesn't get it" is really not so in my mind. Again, I'm not suggesting each of the new courses today is a home run but the idea that today's design is merely cookie-cutter type stuff doesn't hold true either.

SL, I like BelAir but don't have it among my personal top 100 USA. No doubt there have been changes -- my last round there was about ten years ago so I don't have any current info to provide. Maybe others can chime in. Love the feeling in standing at the 1st tee.

Ed:

Please nuff of the parent role admonishing me on what is "childish." You sent me a message off-line and I answered it. I also flushed out my opinion in great details. Whether you wish to understand what I have written is another matter but I don't need the lecture from you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()