Deciphering Great Quotes 3/2/11

« **on:** March 02, 2011, 04:55:13 PM »

Realizing that quotes can be taken out of context, one of my daily activities is to read Shaq's quote of the day.

Here's today's, and the reason I bring it here, is the last line or point. What do you think the authors meant by it?

My guess is it's an attempt to classify the differing types of golfers. Similar to what Mike Nuzzo, and more recently, Mac Plumart have done.

Quote

Golf is a game which is comprehensive enough to satisfy the different tastes of those who are by nature imaginative; of those, on the other hand, who are intensely rational; or, in the third instance, of those who regard it as a thing to be dealt with politically, controlled and regulated as a matter of statecraft. TOM SIMPSON and H.N. WETHERED

« **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:06:28 PM »

I think it is a Big World Theory-esque cop out.

« **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:23:52 PM »

It has nothing to do with architecture directly, imo. So your BWT is out. After further consideration the quote tries to impart the elastic nature of this great sport.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:44:40 PM »

A -

well, it does have to do with architecture if the (implied) question is "and what kind of field of play can satisfy the poet as well it does the scientist and the businessman"? (Since it's W&S, I think we can assume this question.)

That is a very good question; and the answer is, potentially, more nuanced and interesting than "that which gives the greatest pleasure to the greatest number".

Peter

« **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:47:24 PM »

Sounds like a swipe at "fairness" to me.

Ciao

« **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:00:47 PM »

Quote from: PPallotta on March 02, 2011, 05:44:40 PM

A -

well, it does have to do with architecture if the (implied) question is "and what kind of field of play can satisfy the poet as well it does the scientist and the businessman"? (Since it's W&S, I think we can assume this question.)

That is a very good question; and the answer is, potentially, more nuanced and interesting than "that which gives the greatest pleasure to the greatest number".

Peter

Of course, I bet they'd answer it by saying either "The Old Course" or "Cypress Point".

Peter

« **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:29:08 PM »

Adam
I think the first two are about golfers and the third about the R&A and the USGA.

« **Reply #7 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:46:33 PM »

Adam...

Interestingly enough, I cut and pasted that very quote from Geoff's site this morning and saved it in my files. It also reminded me that I need to read their book.

I don't know if it soley focused on arhictecture. I read the first part, then stop, and think.

Golf is a game which is comprehensive enough to satisfy the different tastes

This talks about the game itself. That is all. The game is comprehensive.

We on this site are immediately drawn to the architecture side of things. But the game is comprehensive enough to offer many different ways to love it. Rules, regulations, code of ethics or honor. Competition, win, lose, or a game. Walk in the park, enjoy, man vs. nature, or sport. Or maybe a million more things. Frankly, Golf is what each person makes it. And isn't that is what is so cool about it?

« **Reply #8 on:** March 02, 2011, 06:54:50 PM »

I find myself wondering if "I thought I saw a puddy cat" had anything to do with predicting the emergence of Tiger Woods.

« **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:06:51 PM »

Deep thoughts by Jeff Brauer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m1z7TWH0q8&feature=related

« **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:16:44 PM »

The greatness of a quote lies in the greatness of the one deciphering it.

You can quote me.

P

« **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:30:30 PM »

Architecture enters into it because the field needs to challenge all these types of approaches to the game.

I'm not sure if you can please all three types with one canvas. Nowadays especially. We seem to have lost most of the sportsman in the third category culminating in excuses about conditioning, or mother nature.

« **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:36:02 PM »

I'm not sure if you can please all three types with one canvas. Nowadays especially. We seem to have lost most of the sportsman in the third category culminating in excuses about conditioning, or mother nature.

Agreed 100%.

« **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:36:22 PM »

Adam and Mac,

I think the second one better fits that description..."intensely rational"...I would put myself in the third category and I'll stake my sportsman-like approach to golf up there with anyone.

The third description seems to aim for someone strategizing for an ideal outcome (score) and able to learn from past efforts. And I can do these things in a foursome in 3 hours, no sweat...

« **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:41:43 PM »

Ever play golf with Bernard Langher?

Give me a course that Ben Crenshaw, Bernard Langher and Scott Hoch would like - that's the ticket.

Nice post, Jim.

« **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:44:01 PM »

Rats - I knew I should've answered "Augusta" in my first post.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:51:56 PM »

Or Seve, Faldo and Kite.

Or Demarat, Snead and Middlecoff.

Or, of course, the ultimate proof of the tri-partate quality of Augusta - Palmer, Nicklaus and Player.

« **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2011, 07:53:37 PM »

Sully, I had to qualify my thought because there are players like you.

« **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2011, 08:30:18 PM »

But don't you think it's the intensely rational type of person that cannot deal with the unpredictability of golf? As opposed to the third description?

« **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2011, 08:45:32 PM »

Jim...

or maybe the intensely rational person understands the risks and rewards inherent in the game and plans accordingly. Another game of unpredicatable luck is poker. Some of the greatest poker players are intensely rational people who simply understand the odds of their situation at all times. Who knows? Just thinking out loud.

« **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:05:31 PM »

Mac,

Could be...I read intensely rational to mean...if I do my job I will succeed, period.

« **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:19:34 PM »

I thought in terms of its opposite, ie. imaginative -- and so the intensely rationale was the player who lacked -- or put little stock in -- imagination. That can't be you, Jim, or else you wouldn't be here on this board.

Peter

« **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:21:52 PM »

I often wonder why I'm here...on this board...

Glad to know it's my imagination.

« **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:24:15 PM »

Quote from: Jim Sullivan on March 02, 2011, 09:05:31 PM

Mac,

Could be...I read intensely rational to mean...if I do my job I will succeed, period.

The obvious second part of that, that I left out unintentionally, but that Peter just put into my head is..."and if I don't do my job (hit a solid shot) I will not succeed."

Not sure.

« **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:25:51 PM »

Quote from: Jim Sullivan on March 02, 2011, 09:21:52 PM

I often wonder why I'm here...on this board...

Glad to know it's my imagination.

That's funny, Jim, that's funny. Hey, think of it this way - it's your Achilles Heel, lest you should grow too great and lose your bearings.

I like to think that's what it does for me...

News:

Adam Clayman

JC Jones

Adam Clayman

Peter Pallotta

Sean_A

Peter Pallotta

Pete_Pittock

Mac Plumart

Jeff_Brauer

Mac Plumart

Peter Pallotta

Adam Clayman

Mac Plumart

JESII

Peter Pallotta

Peter Pallotta

Peter Pallotta

Adam Clayman

JESII

Mac Plumart

JESII

Peter Pallotta

JESII

JESII

Peter Pallotta

An Error Has Occurred!