[Lyman Gallup]

George:

I didn't see any of the tournament at all; I was on vacation in Montana.  But, looking at the leader board, I think you would have a hard time making the case that the bombers were unduly penalized.

Hope you were visiting the Rock Creek Cattle Company as that would provide, in my opinion, an excellent contrast to WS in regard to "naturalness" of the golf course.  Thanks for your good work there.

[Mark Smolens]

While I am not a rater, I have played all of the courses at Kohler multiple times (at least 10 on the Straits). WS is, from the correct tee box, NOT a difficult course for the high handicap players. It can be a difficult walk for those who stray from the wide fairways, but it simply isn't that hard for them to get the ball back in play. About eight years ago I took my old boss and two of his buddies to Kohler for the weekend. The two high (25+) handicappers and their 12 handicap friend absolute hated the River Course. If you want to see lost balls, try hitting it crooked on the middle nine holes on the River. But the Straits? From the light green tee boxes (I'm guessing not much over 6200 yards) the high handicap players had an absolute blast, even with the 20 mph winds we had that day.

Tell me it's overpriced, and I'm with you. Call it a "faux" links, and you'll get no argument from me. Tell me that you don't believe that it's as good as the Bandon courses, okay fine. But don't tell me you think it's a bad course and not "worthy" of a major championship unless you've been there.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I believe that golfweek raters are much like people on this site..you either love or dislike the place.
I have spent alot of time with golfweek raters and the approximate split on the course from my discussions is aboput 75/25 in favour of the course.
I only know this because,  as mentioned earlier  WSis not one of my favourites and I always wonder why others...not only Golfweek...rate it so highly.

I think in the end it is viewed as a visual spectacle more than what kind of a golf course it is..all that flash at the expense of what could have been a more subtle wonderful golf course.

[Ben Sims]

I am not impressed and slightly off put by the severity and abruptness of the green surrounds and decidedly extraneous use of bunkers.  

Ben:

Kinda like Pine Valley?

Phil,

I've never been to Pine Valley, but I assume two key differences when speaking specifically about severity and bunker use.

1) Note that I used the word "abruptness".  The straight fall offs of tens of feet from many of the greens look VERY man made to me.  I.e, it's very abrupt to my eye.  The surrounds of the greens at Pine Valley--in pictures of course --seem to be of a severe nature, yet do a very good job of matching their surrounds.

2) I never have seen a picture of Pine Valley and thought--aesthetically--that there were too many bunkers.  I think this is primarily because they are in play and relatively near the playing areas, kind of like Oakmont's many bunkers.  The visuals presented at Whistling Straits made my head spin with so many unusually placed and unnatural looking hazards.  

Mark, Clint, et al,

I think you guys are right about those of us that haven't seen it.  I should reserve my comments and resign from this thread.  But yesterday, I became so infuriated at amount of bunkers and the idea that perched plates with crossties sunk into their faces on the side of a cliff look natural, that some posting on the course was inevitable.  I'll shut up until I've seen it now.

[Steve Lapper]

What about the Irish Course?

I mean if Whistling Straits is viewed that good, than logic or mine would say the Irish Course should be ranked and it is not.. Why? Because its horrid, thats why.

I have played 4 rounds on Whistling Straits and other than Lake Michigan and the par 3s I can't recall much except that ugly pond on #5 due to what Ran says about the tons of visual stimulation.

There are at least a 20 modern courses I'd rather play before I'd go back to Kohler.  Heck, I like Blackwolf River better..

Noel,

I was thinking similarly. I've played 4 rounds at WS and in zero hurry to ever get back there. Funny thing is that I don't mind it's contrived, faux nature as much as I don't like a course that proposes to emulate a links course, then play diametrically opposite of one. Places like Bayonne and The Ocean Course don't suffer from such fallacy. Whistling Straits and it's sister, the Irish Course both suffered from an overplayed hand and neither felt like I'd want to tee it up there again. Blackwolf Run was a much better choice and a solid parklands experience.

Cary,

   Furthering your fine art analysis, I'd go as far as to find WS like a work from Jeff Koons.....an expensive parody of an a socially material image with zero substance. Pricey, but vapid.

Brad,

  Might your recent accolades for the course be influenced by your feelings for the architect? I'm not challenging your integrity, nor impugning your judgement, but instead simply asking if a close rapport with an artist might preclude you from being 100% objective? I know I'd be, if faced with an identical situation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

Visually, from a distance, you certainly have to appreciate the "WOW" factor at WS.

When the "WOW" factor is combined with the hosting of a Major, any course's stock trades up.

When you add another element to those two factors, the "Pedigree", Pete Dye, the stock trades up higher.

It's accessible to the public despite what some consider high prices.

And, they've done a good to great job in promoting the resort.

Those factors can skew a rater's perspective.

Kind of like revealing photos of good looking women that get your attention.
Oh, I forgot, you just read "Playboy" and "Penthouse" for the articles 

[Phil McDade]

I am not impressed and slightly off put by the severity and abruptness of the green surrounds and decidedly extraneous use of bunkers.  

Ben:

Kinda like Pine Valley?

Phil,

I've never been to Pine Valley, but I assume two key differences when speaking specifically about severity and bunker use.

1) Note that I used the word "abruptness".  The straight fall offs of tens of feet from many of the greens look VERY man made to me.  I.e, it's very abrupt to my eye.  The surrounds of the greens at Pine Valley--in pictures of course --seem to be of a severe nature, yet do a very good job of matching their surrounds.

2) I never have seen a picture of Pine Valley and thought--aesthetically--that there were too many bunkers.  I think this is primarily because they are in play and relatively near the playing areas, kind of like Oakmont's many bunkers.  The visuals presented at Whistling Straits made my head spin with so many unusually placed and unnatural looking hazards.  

Ben:

I've never been to PV, either. But in many quarters, it's viewed as one of the ultimate penal courses, in part because (from what I've read) slightly straying from the fairways and greens is quite penal. PV is basically carved out of a forest and built on sand, and from what I've seen, there is very little-to-no room for error once the golfer strays from the fairways and greens. Now, folks like Patrick Mucci would argue that the fairways are quite wide, and the greens fair targets. Fair enough. But there's little question it was built to be a very tough course; TEPaul has said that was essentially what Crump was trying to accomplish there -- build the toughtest-SOB course in the greater Philly area.

I think Dye built WS to be severe from the tips, and part of that is the visual craziness he built into the sight lines from the tips for the very best players in the world. (Whether or not it serves its purpose, you'd have to ask the pros. I know that one time I stood right next to the lake-fronting par 4 13th tee at WS in 2004, with a breeze blowing right out to Lake Michigan, and thought -- there is no way you can hit that fairway. They made it look easy. But that's why they have the jobs that they do...)

My primary argument is that if one is to criticize WS for its "severity," broadly intepreted, then it's fair to assess other courses that also play severely.

[Jim Colton]

Might the Unofficial GCA Modern List be more palatable?

1.Sand Hills Golf Club
2.Pacific Dunes
3.Ballyneal
4.Friar’s Head 
5.Sebonack Golf Club
6.Rock Creek Cattle Company
7.Ocean Course at Kiawah Island
8.Kingsley Club
9.Bandon Trails 
10.TPC at Sawgrass (Players Stadium)
11.Bandon Dunes
12.The Golf Club
13.Whistling Straits (Straits)

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've never been to PV, either. But in many quarters, it's viewed as one of the ultimate penal courses, in part because (from what I've read) slightly straying from the fairways and greens is quite penal. PV is basically carved out of a forest and built on sand, and from what I've seen, there is very little-to-no room for error once the golfer strays from the fairways and greens.

Phil, I don't find PV to be one of the "ultimate penal courses"
To be certain, it can be difficult, especially for the unthinking or for a golfer who's off his game, but it's definitely one of the "ultimate penal courses"

Now, folks like Patrick Mucci would argue that the fairways are quite wide, and the greens fair targets. Fair enough.

That's true.
The fairways are very generous and the greens, other than # 8 and perhaps # 12 are also quite generous.

But there's little question it was built to be a very tough course; TEPaul has said that was essentially what Crump was trying to accomplish there -- build the toughtest-SOB course in the greater Philly area.

Phil, you can't listen to that idiot-savant from HappyDale farms.

It was built as a "Championship" course.
Yet photos show a woman on the 2nd tee.
And, the membership, while golf lovers all, present a broad spectrum of handicaps.

Many years ago I brought a group of 7 guests to play PV.
All of whom were in my regular weekend group
Amongst them were some high handicaps (16-20)
Do you know that the worst golfer of the bunch had his career round at PV.
He shot about 10 shots below his handicap.
He was ecstatic.  We were all amazed or rather, flabergasted.
But, he was fairly straight, hit the ball decent, and didn't gamble with hitting risky shots.
Now, the greens weren't stimping at 11-13, but we weren't playing in a tournament either.

In 2005, when I couldn't hit the ball very far, maybe 200 yards, I shot even par from the members tees.
I was able to keep the ball in the fairway, and it's about a 50-50 aerial-ground game into the greens.
So I didn't encounter any penal features.
I played there recently and had another great round, but, since I'm hitting the ball longer, I can find more trouble.

I think the higher handicap, while intimidated their first time, finds the course user friendly, not penal.

If you go off those enormous fairways, yes, it can be penal, but, you really have to hit a fairly wild shot to do that.

I think Dye built WS to be severe from the tips, and part of that is the visual craziness he built into the sight lines from the tips for the very best players in the world. (Whether or not it serves its purpose, you'd have to ask the pros. I know that one time I stood right next to the lake-fronting par 4 13th tee at WS in 2004, with a breeze blowing right out to Lake Michigan, and thought -- there is no way you can hit that fairway. They made it look easy. But that's why they have the jobs that they do...)

Then it's your contention that the average golfer neither feels the effects of the wind and never gets into any of those 1,200 bunkers, or finds those steep slopes or water hazards ?   ?    ?


My primary argument is that if one is to criticize WS for its "severity," broadly intepreted, then it's fair to assess other courses that also play severely.
OK, name those courses ?
And then, make sure that you judge them by the same criteria.

Surely, you can't compare WS to PV in terms of being penal.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom Doak - I was not trying to imply in my post that Brad's review was justification for WS's ranking... just trying to remind Ran that two talented, informed and skilled critics can have very different opinions of the same course. Obviously, Ran and Brad do not see eye-to-eye on Whistling Straits.

[C. Squier]

Mark, Clint, et al,

I think you guys are right about those of us that haven't seen it.  I should reserve my comments and resign from this thread.  But yesterday, I became so infuriated at amount of bunkers and the idea that perched plates with crossties sunk into their faces on the side of a cliff look natural, that some posting on the course was inevitable.  I'll shut up until I've seen it now.

Don't do that.  I would simply suggest reserving comparative judgement until you've had the chance to play WS.  It's one thing to say you don't like the look of the place, it's another to give it a numerical ranking without having experienced it. That's all  

[Brian Noser]

Ran,

Visually, from a distance, you certainly have to appreciate the "WOW" factor at WS.

When the "WOW" factor is combined with the hosting of a Major, any course's stock trades up.

When you add another element to those two factors, the "Pedigree", Pete Dye, the stock trades up higher.

How does this WOW factor from a distance differ from the ocean at many of the courses? Shouldnt we be looking at the course as a wholeand not worry about the WOW factor?

[Phil McDade]

Patrick:

My argument is that Dye built WS with majors in mind; in fact, those were his marching orders from Herb Kohler. As folks like Mark Smolens have pointed out, WS is not necessarily penal for the mid-to-high handicapper, playing off appropriate tees. WS, from when I've walked it, is more visually intimidating -- much more so -- played from the tees by the pros for a major (7,500+ yards) then for the mid-high handicapper playing it at @ 6,200 yards. (Dye accomplished this in part by lowering some of the back tees, and moving them away from the fairways, so the pros would have more uncertainty, and more carry, with their tee shots.)

Having said that, a quick look at the leaderboard would suggest WS did not play terribly penal during the tournament, or even on Sunday, when conditions were at their most difficult. Most players on the leaderboard shot under par on Sunday; only two really struggled (Watney and Furyk). Rounds of 67, 68, and 69 were shot Sunday.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

Visually, from a distance, you certainly have to appreciate the "WOW" factor at WS.

When the "WOW" factor is combined with the hosting of a Major, any course's stock trades up.

When you add another element to those two factors, the "Pedigree", Pete Dye, the stock trades up higher.

How does this WOW factor from a distance differ from the ocean at many of the courses?

I don't know which courses you mean with respect to the ocean, could you cite the ones you're referencing.

Often, the ocean is a horizon rather than an immediate feature and as such, it's not a "WOW" factor.
When a hole borders or is very close to the ocean, the "WOW" factor is more in play.
Aerial shot after aerial shot burned the WS image into the golfer's brain.

Green golf course, amazing white bunkering and blue water make for an impressive image.

Shouldnt we be looking at the course as a wholeand not worry about the WOW factor?

I'm pretty sure that Ran feels that way, as do I, but neither Ran nor myself are responsible for the ratings.

[Bryan Icenhower]

I just got done playing the Straits today with the same set-up as yesterday.  Honestly, having walked the course and having watched it on TV, I was amazed at the difference in playing vs seeing.  As I have been saying for the past few days to friends, its a highly visually intimidating course, especially when the winds blow, which they were today.  After playing, its a lot more open than one would imagine, at least in my opinion.  Yes, 5 doesn't fit, and there are way too many stray bunkers that serve no purpose other than to fill a quota or ego, but all in all I had a blast playing it.   Top 3, not for me to decide, but it was an enjoyable round, even with the Sunday set-up.

[Ed Oden]

As Ran knows, I am a Golfweek rater who rates Whistling Straits about 10 spots lower than its current position.  In my opinion, it is a very good, but not great course. 

But my personal opinion is beside the point.  Ran asked a specific question and I have a wholly unsupportable theory on why WS is ranked so high.  Of the modern courses that are arguably under consideration for the very top ranking spots, WS is among the most easily accessible.  Most of the modern courses that I believe are clearly better than WS are either remotely located and difficult to get to (e.g., Bandon, Ballyneal) or very private clubs that are difficult for raters to get on (e.g., Friars Head) or both (e.g., Sand Hills).  On the other hand, I would bet that WS is among the most visited courses by raters.  It would not surprise me at all if the vast majority of raters who give WS a 9-10 grade on Golfweek's scale have not been to the other elite modern courses.  So WS may very well be the best modern course they have seen.  If so, I can see how they rate it so high.   After all, it takes the perspective of having seen something better to give things context.  Just a theory.

[Adam Clayman]

Ran, I'd be curious how many of those 100 votes come from Chicagoland raters. It may explain it's high position. My theory being, there's a ton of regional bias in these ratings, when the course is in close proximity to major metro areas.

[Ronald Montesano]

My two cents...

Penny # 1...for those who haven't played the course, guess how many of those 1200 bunkers actually come into play (given that you can competently play the game)?

Penny # 2...I've played Whistling Straits and Pete Dye Golf Club and guess what?  They are different courses on different plots of land and I don't know which one I would rate higher, nor do I care.  This whole thing is SOOO Animal Farm, with some animals being more equal than others.

[Wayne Freeman]

Ed-   I think you hit the nail on the head.  WS is certanly very accessible for many raters.  I think it definitely belongs in the top 25 of the moderns, but isn't in the same league with courses like Sand Hills,  Ballyneal, Pac Dunes, Friars Head, or Old Mac.  It's also been my experience that a bunch of the raters have rarely or maybe never even played any top 10 courses modern or classic courses so I think you're right in your reasoning for why WS has such a lofty ranking.

[Brad Klein]

Steve Lapper,

My acknowledged fondness for Pete did not preclude my distaste for his work at Southern Hills Plantation in Fla. or Pound Ridge in NY  -- in print. Nor does it do anything in the face of his dreadful renovation of Ross' CC of Birmingham-West Course, AL, or the boring newer nine on the Blackwolf Run-Valley Meadows Course. And even at Whistling Straits, I've written that the 5th hole looks like a mediocre Myrtle Beach hole and doesn't belong and that the new green/bunkering on the 6th is over the top.

Whistling Straits is different than most courses -- than almost all Modern courses.. Of course it's contrived. But it's also beautiful, exaggerated, psychologically sophisticated, and noteworthy as a landmark. Sure, the fescue management is an expensive nightmare there. It's too expensive to play. And it's crazy to maintain. Butt here is way for the higher handicapper to play every shot on every hole and play w/i their game, if they just think a little.

In retrospect I wish I had highlighted this year -- as I had in previous writings about WS -- that the real shame of the place is the way how, over the years and before 2010 (I think it was actually for the 2004 PGA) the PGA of America, with Dye's reluctant consent, narrowed the fairways by some 15-acres in total and not only narrowed the fairways but regrassed them completely and took away much of the side cushioning the place originally had -- which gave it far more appeal than it has now.

I that's all Pete did -- an expensive resort on that scale -- it would be inexcusable. But he's done more than any architect to create a diverse range of courses, including low-budget/high quality private courses (Firethorn in Neb.), low budget University courses (Karsten Course at ASU) and low-budget, high quality, easy-to-maintain munis (Wintonbury Hills, CT).

The idea that one should be critical of a golf course because of the genre it represents is putting too much of a critical burden on a golf course, especially when it's not the only genre that architect has created.

[Adam Lawrence]

I haven't been to Whistling Straits, but I've seen quite a few of the modern faux links, constructed from the ground up courses, and I think they are pretty conflicting.

Much of the criticism of WS, it seems to me, is coming from people who put a high value on golf courses being, or seeming to be, natural. If you value naturalness in a course, then arriving at a property through flatlands to find large, obviously artificial mounds greeting you, then however good the golf course itself, there will be, somewhere deep in your brain, the perception that it isn't 'real'. Few projects have enough land or cash (or ambition) to continue the shaping right to the edge of the property. At Sand GC in Sweden, a Hills/Forrest course I saw two years ago, there were some really interesting holes on the interior; but I couldn't get out of my mind the images we saw on arrival, huge mounds rising starkly from the flats. It was obviously imposed on the land, and that didn't help my view of the course. At the Castle course in St Andrews, which in general, I really like, when you get to the top of the property, you see the farmland that surrounds it, and again, it brings home to you the artificiality. One of the things that Mike Nuzzo did so well at Wolf Point was to blend the course into the surrounding land by toning down the shaping on the outside edges (for those who've been there, I'm thinking especially of the left side of the third hole), although the shaping at WP is on a much smaller scale anyway. Kingsbarns does the natural thing better than most, but the way the course is terraced into decks to ensure that every hole has a water view brings home the degree of unnaturalness that's there.

There is nothing wrong with artifice per se. But if you try to mimic nature, then you shouldn't be surprised if people comment on where you have and haven't succeeded in doing so.

[Steve Lapper]

Steve Lapper,

My acknowledged fondness for Pete did not preclude my distaste for his work at Southern Hills Plantation in Fla. or Pound Ridge in NY  -- in print. Nor does it do anything in the face of his dreadful renovation of Ross' CC of Birmingham-West Course, AL, or the boring newer nine on the Blackwolf Run-Valley Meadows Course. And even at Whistling Straits, I've written that the 5th hole looks like a mediocre Myrtle Beach hole and doesn't belong and that the new green/bunkering on the 6th is over the top.

Whistling Straits is different than most courses -- than almost all Modern courses.. Of course it's contrived. But it's also beautiful, exaggerated, psychologically sophisticated, and noteworthy as a landmark. Sure, the fescue management is an expensive nightmare there. It's too expensive to play. And it's crazy to maintain. Butt here is way for the higher handicapper to play every shot on every hole and play w/i their game, if they just think a little.

In retrospect I wish I had highlighted this year -- as I had in previous writings about WS -- that the real shame of the place is the way how, over the years and before 2010 (I think it was actually for the 2004 PGA) the PGA of America, with Dye's reluctant consent, narrowed the fairways by some 15-acres in total and not only narrowed the fairways but regrassed them completely and took away much of the side cushioning the place originally had -- which gave it far more appeal than it has now.

I that's all Pete did -- an expensive resort on that scale -- it would be inexcusable. But he's done more than any architect to create a diverse range of courses, including low-budget/high quality private courses (Firethorn in Neb.), low budget University courses (Karsten Course at ASU) and low-budget, high quality, easy-to-maintain munis (Wintonbury Hills, CT).

The idea that one should be critical of a golf course because of the genre it represents is putting too much of a critical burden on a golf course, especially when it's not the only genre that architect has created.

Brad,

A balanced and fair rebuttal (and I'd have bet on nothing less   ). I just thought it was fair to raise the question, as it was self-evident that I couldn't comment on a Kelly Moran course without having a somewhat positive bias.

You are correct that WS is different than most courses. It most certainly is. Only Bayonne, in my estimation comes remotely close to providing a similar template for comparison. While the scales (and maybe the ultimate audience) of both are vastly different, they both closely resemble each other for creativity, beauty, exaggeration, and psychological sophistication. It is exactly the treatment of scale, not the critique of genre,  that ultimately leads to what should be our collective disappointment. Why does the scale of WS justifiy it's "over-the-top" treatment of outside the line-of-play areas?

No doubt Pete Dye is a master GCA and eminently worthy of praise, but his insistence on the placement of literally hundreds of extraneous sandy pits takes excess and exaggeration to a new level of ridiculousness. Though I never found any in my four rounds there ( a few of my playing partners did have a strange, almost magnetic, attraction for them), their mere existence posed both a distraction and an unnecessary impediment to timely play. How could this not detract from the course's rating for beauty and playability? Why is it that we don't ever see this from any "contrived" or otherwise modern course?

Artistic license is available and necessary, but it is hardly absolute. Pete Dye is too good and seasoned an architect to have his work reduced to Disneyesque inanity.Unfortunately (or maybe not?), for Dye and Kohler, their showcase will forever carry a golf course architecture asterisk. Whether Appleby or Johnson, or some other pro's name in 2015, why does this need to occur? Is this not, at the very least, a recognizable design flaw?

[Brian Joines]

I am not impressed and slightly off put by the severity and abruptness of the green surrounds and decidedly extraneous use of bunkers. 

Ben:

Kinda like Pine Valley?

Apples to Oranges. Pine Valley has a bunch of waste areas while we now know that WS doesn't have any, just 1200 bunkers!

[Brian Noser]

Ran,

Visually, from a distance, you certainly have to appreciate the "WOW" factor at WS.

When the "WOW" factor is combined with the hosting of a Major, any course's stock trades up.

When you add another element to those two factors, the "Pedigree", Pete Dye, the stock trades up higher.

How does this WOW factor from a distance differ from the ocean at many of the courses?

I don't know which courses you mean with respect to the ocean, could you cite the ones you're referencing.

Often, the ocean is a horizon rather than an immediate feature and as such, it's not a "WOW" factor.
When a hole borders or is very close to the ocean, the "WOW" factor is more in play.
Aerial shot after aerial shot burned the WS image into the golfer's brain.

Green golf course, amazing white bunkering and blue water make for an impressive image.

I dont recall the exact quote or the exact thread but I do remember there being talk something to the effect of the ocean can not be viewd as a part of the course.  I think it was on a  pebblie beach thread? I am just wondering how the 1200 bunkers many of which are out of play add to the WOW factor but the ocean at pebble can not be part of the WOW factor? WOW factor is part of many courses ranked so highly. This WOW factor like you said is not to be ignored.

Shouldnt we be looking at the course as a wholeand not worry about the WOW factor?

I'm pretty sure that Ran feels that way, as do I, but neither Ran nor myself are responsible for the ratings.

[George Pazin]

While I am not a rater, I have played all of the courses at Kohler multiple times (at least 10 on the Straits). WS is, from the correct tee box, NOT a difficult course for the high handicap players. It can be a difficult walk for those who stray from the wide fairways, but it simply isn't that hard for them to get the ball back in play. About eight years ago I took my old boss and two of his buddies to Kohler for the weekend. The two high (25+) handicappers and their 12 handicap friend absolute hated the River Course. If you want to see lost balls, try hitting it crooked on the middle nine holes on the River. But the Straits? From the light green tee boxes (I'm guessing not much over 6200 yards) the high handicap players had an absolute blast, even with the 20 mph winds we had that day.

Tell me it's overpriced, and I'm with you. Call it a "faux" links, and you'll get no argument from me. Tell me that you don't believe that it's as good as the Bandon courses, okay fine. But don't tell me you think it's a bad course and not "worthy" of a major championship unless you've been there.

This is astonishing to me. Looking at the course this past weekend, I kept thinking of my thread "How good do you have to be to appreciate Pete Dye?" The course looked like one that would torture a wild golfer like me. Like the other PD courses I've played, it looked like I'd have to play it at 5500 yards with a 7 iron to have any chance of not losing 20 balls.

The hole that epitomized that to me was the 600 yard zig zag par 5. They said repeatedly the pros were eating it up ('cept Tiger,,, ), but I would be all over the place on that hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()