[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I don't find the changes at Augusta to be as objectionable as the ones at Point O'Woods. And while I like the Point, Augusta had a lot more going with it before and after. Augusta should be judged for what it is now, but I don't think there are ten courses better than Augusta's current iteration. To be honest, I'd be surprised if there are that half that many, but I haven't played all the contenders.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

You say you don't defend Hootie -- but you are not exactly being forthcoming in what has happened to the course during his watch as Chair. Why the need to make such major changes? Was something truly broken that it required the efforts they demonstrated?

Yes, I am a Gamecock along with Hootie but when South Carolinians have acted boldly you have gotten a few wonderfl historic moments - like leaving the Union first or my alma mater making th etragic mistake in leaving the ACC a number of years back.

Jim, I have always enjoyed our banter but frankly you are being too much of an ANGC apologist. The issue isn't about all the changes -- many were done very well -- it's the ones that happened during his watch that I am stressing because they continue to take away what made ANGC so special and distinctive.

Let me point out the Whitten article on the 11th hole in the current GD issue is superb -- it shows how the hole was improved and then what it has now transformed itself into being. You don't want to look at the pic but in this case ignorance is bliss (with all due respect).

ANGC made its marks because it was so different from other courses -- the Hootie changes only served to accentuate a more penal and narrow approach to golf design.

Jim, you are a most capable observer -- you are simply missing what has happened to the course and how ANGC lost its inner soul and charm in order to combat an issue that really was never an issue -- bruised egos have a way in doing such things.

[David Kelly]

David Kelly:

You didn't address my comments back to you.

Do you see walking a course as a viable way to rate a course ? Yes or No.

No I don't.

And to answer your next question I know Tom Doak walked some of the courses in the CG. But he wrote a book and put his name on the cover and he explained his qualifications and philosophy in the introduction. As far as I can tell he was upfront about which courses he just walked or partially saw and readers can decide for themselves how much validity they give his opinions.

But can you really not see the difference between a golf architect and student of golf course architecture opining on a certain course based on walking it and having a golf course ratings panel allow their panelists to send in course ratings based on walking around the perimeter of a course or watching it on tv?

Do you think GW's rating of ANGC would be more accurate if instead of being based on the 30 or 40 people who played it it was based on the 30 or 40 people who played it as well as about 300 other votes from people who have been to the tournament or just watched a lot of the TV coverage?

[Adam Clayman]

I call BS on Matt's across the board application. It really depends on who is doing the evaluation.       Andy. ANGC changes are many. The character loss is the loss of contouring not only the flatter greens but fairways too.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Glad you can weigh in with your tired and predictable yawn about BS. Adam -- the contrarian role fits you well. You lumped what I said about the Hootie era changes to ANGC into some broader application to all ANGC changes. Great dodge ball -- but what else is new. Adam -- ANGC lost its fundamental character when Hootie / Tom Fazio, et al did what they did. Read the comments of past Masters champions in this regard. What the hell do they know?

David:

Great excuse story to justify one person (Doak) and disallow others. Love the tapdance rationale that comes with it.

You also hint others have not been "upfront" about places they have not played. I never said anything other than my thoughts about ANGC came from walking the course and seeing firsthand the many changes made there. Nothing hidden there at all.

You think architects have the end-all in terms of what they see? Really ?

Also, correction I have walked the actual course -- not the sidelines as you state. Big difference amigo.

Let me point out when you say about people playing the course -- let me ask you this -- do you think a one time play is better than someone who has walked the course numerous times over the span of 30+ years. Do you think a one time play really reveals all there is when coming to a course? Maybe you do.

[David Kelly]

David:

Great excuse story to justify one person (Doak) and disallow others. Love the tapdance rationale that comes with it.

You also hint others have not been "upfront" about places they have not played. I never said anything other than my thoughts about ANGC came from walking the course and seeing firsthand the many changes made there. Nothing hidden there at all.

You think architects have the end-all in terms of what they see? Really ?

Also, correction I have walked the actual course -- not the sidelines as you state. Big difference amigo.

Let me point out when you say about people playing the course -- let me ask you this -- do you think a one time play is better than someone who has walked the course numerous times over the span of 30+ years. Do you think a one time play really reveals all there is when coming to a course? Maybe you do.

Predictibly you don't read what I wrote and you address things that I didn't write (or even "hint" about).

Is Tom Doak the only person in the world whose opinion I would be interested in after only walking a course? No.

Is it good policy for a golf ratings panel to allow anonymous panelists to submit ratings on courses they have only walked and have those ratings count equally with those from players who have played the course? No.

But my original and only point was that it didn't make sense for people to complain about the integrity or methodology of GW's rankings and then try to prove that GW was off base by rating a course that they have never played.

BTW, would The Jersey Golfer have published Best of New Jersey rankings based on people only having walked the course?

[jim_lewis]

Matt:

You seem to be imagining things. You have no idea what I think about the many changes that have taken place at ANGC. I have not apologized for ANGC. My only comment on the changes that have occurred over the many years was that "some were good. Some were bad." I have no interest in discussing specifics on this site, because I don't expect to change anyone's mind, least of all yours.

You can be sure that I have not missed any of the changes that have occurred since 1965 since I have spent an average of about 3 days on the course every year except 1 since 1965. That includes playing the course at least once in each of those decades (except last year). In fact, for the last 10 years or so, my primary reason for going to Augusta is to check out the changes that have been made the previous year. I certainly have my opinion of most of those changes, but I have no interest in discussing the topic with folks who already have their minds made up.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Why not stop the tap dancing and the dodge ball tactics and weigh in on what you think about the changes ?

Your credentials are respected -- certainly to me and likely others.

Nice cop out partner. My mind is open -- how bout you make the case ?

You spend plenty of time bemoaning me -- how bout you step out on a limb ?

Falling short of that I have no other recourse than to believe you are an apologist for the club.

David:

You answered the question I asked with a "no."

But then you provide an out for Doak and other architects as a favored class that can such things. Makes perfect sense to me.

I read what you wrote -- not the silly "predictabily" comment you made.

Let me point out that if you think a one time is better than someone who has walked the course numerous time over different weather patterns and see a whole host of shots - good, bad and in-between -- then you are really in a far different place.
So be it -- for you.

I can only see someone playing the course multiple times as having a distinct advantage over someone who has walked the course.

I would think -- especially someone as observant as you are would understand -- that a one time is a narrow perspective of a course -- it may be accurate in certain ways and far less in other ways. I also believe that each rater can be at a far different place in terms of their comments based on the totality of top tier layouts they have played as a mechanism for a better compare and contrast listing. Just the nature of what ANGC is about will likely sway people who are not sufficiently up to the task to truly understand what the architecture was meant to be and what has happened over the last 10+ years. The Whitten article in the current GD spells out so much about the 11th hole's evolution.

Just a quick question -- do you believe the changes instituted by Hootie / Tom Fazio were in the spirit of what Jones . Mackenzie wanted? Do you believe they have actually improved the course? You can opine from the seat of your pants from your home if you wish - I respect your judgement as a good observer of quality golf designs.

Jersey Golfer was able to gain access to all the key coursrs in the state. If someone were providing their comments solely from walking -- I would have no issue with that provided the person making such comments has demonstrated a real understranding of just what it is they are evaluating. If they are able to do so -- that's fine with me. No doubt if you have someone who has played a given course several times versus someone who has only walked such a course a few times -- the edge goes to the former -- no question about that. Can you tell me with 100% accuracy -- or anywhere close to that -- that all of the raters who have been at ANGC have played the course more than one time and that they aren't swept away with all the aura that makes being at ANGC so imposing ? Is it the architectue that matters most -- or the fanfare tied in playing the course ? Hard for anyone to say with utter certainty.

[jeffwarne]

Matt:

You seem to be imagining things. You have no idea what I think about the many changes that have taken place at ANGC. I have not apologized for ANGC. My only comment on the changes that have occurred over the many years was that "some were good. Some were bad." I have no interest in discussing specifics on this site, because I don't expect to change anyone's mind, least of all yours.

You can be sure that I have not missed any of the changes that have occurred since 1965 since I have spent an average of about 3 days on the course every year except 1 since 1965. That includes playing the course at least once in each of those decades (except last year). In fact, for the last 10 years or so, my primary reason for going to Augusta is to check out the changes that have been made the previous year. I certainly have my opinion of most of those changes, but I have no interest in discussing the topic with folks who already have their minds made up.

Jim,
Good stuff. Since you've been doing "heavy lifting" at Augusta since 1965, you certainly are qualified to comment on the changes at Augusta. First of all congrats-that's quite a run.
What some on this site can't get past is that Augusta has had a tradition of change, and long before the changes wrongfully attributed to Tiger's '97 freak show, the course made AT LEAST one or two changes every year, and the players always were curious about what was next.
It was always considered a long course until the progressive  ball improvements of the 80's and 90's and finally early 2000's rendered the course quite short for the elite players and altered the risk reward equation on many holes.
Many people have fond memories of The Masters in the 90's and all the drama of the par 5's,but frankly the entire field shouldn't be reaching every par 5 and that was the case in the 90's and certainly early 2000's.
The risk reward equation has been restored, but a couple of poor decisions (#7 for example) and several years of wet, cold, windy weather and everybody freaks out.
It's a great golf course, and as a tournament venue, most of the changes were positive.
The course had rough before (and what they have now is hardly rough), but again many seem to think history started in 1990.
and matt, before you go ripping Hootie and Fazio, what about RT Jones.
the Mackenzie look was long gone before Fazio got there; for God's sake they never even paid Mackenzie.
and yes I could do without many of the new pines

[Adam Clayman]

Matt. No, thank you for your predictable complete lack of comprehension. After thinking more about it you are right, in that A person can walk outside the ropes, and then opine on the finer points, of the golf course. Their opinion isn't worth as much as if that persoin had actually golfed it, but they're still entitled to come on here, or submit a vote for a national panel, and pontificate that they are the expert. They can also contnually insult the other participants or their editor without any repercussions.  Or is there?

[Ed Oden]

Matt, I'm not sure your current position on this thread is entirely consistent with the stance you have taken elsewhere...

I don't opine personally on courses I have never played.

Instead of the sarcastic bent -- how is it too much to ask that people at least play the course in question before making statements on whether or not it merits the attention it clearly should be getting in my mind?

Playing provides the ultimate way to see if the design elements in observation from walking actually really intersect when the game is finally played.

Observation of others does help ... however ... you are limited to what you see. Getting the chance to see for oneself through actual play allows you to take the mental image from observation alone and then hook it up to the execution side. I've played my share of courses where the walking tour really did little justice (both positive and negative) until the clubs were in hand.

Real credibility comes from being observant through the actual playing of a shot / hole / course that can separate what one believes is the case (mainly through photos and the like).

Clearly, it's just my opinion. But, I take issue with people who simply comment on courses that they have NEVER played or worse yet make broad comments about the work of another architect or site but still have not played the finished product (i.e. Karsten Creek and Olde Kinderhook).

When you or anyone else throws in comments about a course you have NEVER played the issue of credibility clearly arises.

If you played the course you would better able know the "context" by which I made my statement concerning how the course is weak in the areas of tee game strategy -- particularly when you look at the details carried out with nearly all the green sites.

It amazes me how people can generate support even when a few are determined to place stock in people's opinions when they have never played the course in question.

However, and I'll say this again and again for the hard of hearing -- those who have NEVER played a course(s) have no real standing beyond seat-of-the-pants opinions.

[Mac Plumart]

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

Here's my issue -- if we presume people can make their feelings known from walking a course then that availabilty either exists for all or none. If it's none -- then I will retract my comments from ANGC -- I also said several times over -- that I have not played the course. But keep this mind -- if someone plays a place just one time -- and another has walked the place and not walked in a casual manner behind the ropes does that matter? My God, we have people weighing in courses and their strategic consequence -- see KH's comments on GN in another thread -- which is doing just that.

One other thing -- my body of work of total courses played for many years gives me a base from which to draw my comments upon. People can weigh them as meaningful or discard them as quickly as a fast food wrapper.

Ed, read again what I stated -- my angst was about people weighing in from photos and the like. Being at a place through walking is not playing but it's more than just weighing in from the computer. But if playing alone is the only way for a place to be truly evaluated then that standard applies to all -- architects and non-architects alike.

Jeff W:

Hold the phone amigo -- please move on from the idea that people like myself are not aware of the basic pattern of changes that have been ongoing at ANGC. Trust me Jeff -- I get that part. The question is have the changes made in the most recent of times really elevated the course beyond where it was previously ? That's the part in major league dispute here.

I'll ask you do you see those changes as a benefit. The second cut -- the narrowing of playing corridors -- the extension of tees to extreme lengths -- the removal of mounds and the cutting pattern of grass back to the tees as a plus? Please weigh in if you like.

You also say "quite short" -- for who ? Tiger in his '97 days -- Lefty in his. What about the bulk of other players -- when Crenshaw last won the Masters he routinely was hitting a fairway metal to the 15th. The idea that the courser had been reduced to wedge-ola because of technology doesn't pan out -- it's as quick and e-z justification for what was to come.

The entire field also wasn't reaching every par-5 in such a risk-free set-up. Just ask Curtis Strange that in '85 and others too numerous to mention. The risk was always there and when you add the pressure of the moment it showed itself to be true countless times.

I am not "freaking out" Jeff -- how about preserving what worked previously instead of the knee-jerk desire one can clearly see -- assuming you have been watching. The officials know full well that what they have done needs to be softened during the weekend with predictable pin locations (see #16 in that collection bowl area on Sundays) instead of the one Jack handled during his final round in '75.

Jeff -- you say rough ? Are you serious ? What rough ? The course I saw from 1976 forward until the insertion of the "second cut" was spacious in the way it should be, No need to add something that didn't do anything biut narrow down the entire place.

By the way when you speak about what RTJ did -- the 11th and 16th holes he envisioned only added to the aura of the course. They didn't change them in the hideous fashion one sees today with the "new" 7th and 11th holes. Please defend those outcomes -- I'd love to hear your excuses on that front.

[Ed Oden]

One other thing -- my body of work of total courses played for many years gives me a base from which to draw my comments upon. People can weigh them as meaningful or discard them as quickly as a fast food wrapper.

True.  My garbage can is now full.

[jeffwarne]

Ed:

Here's my issue -- if we presume people can make their feelings known from walking a course then that availabilty either exists for all or none. If it's none -- then I will retract my comments from ANGC -- I also said several times over -- that I have not played the course. But keep this mind -- if someone plays a place just one time -- and another has walked the place and not walked in a casual manner behind the ropes does that matter? My God, we have people weighing in courses and their strategic consequence -- see KH's comments on GN in another thread -- which is doing just that.

One other thing -- my body of work of total courses played for many years gives me a base from which to draw my comments upon. People can weigh them as meaningful or discard them as quickly as a fast food wrapper.

Ed, read again what I stated -- my angst was about people weighing in from photos and the like. Being at a place through walking is not playing but it's more than just weighing in from the computer. But if playing alone is the only way for a place to be truly evaluated then that standard applies to all -- architects and non-architects alike.

Jeff W:

Hold the phone amigo -- please move on from the idea that people like myself are not aware of the basic pattern of changes that have been ongoing at ANGC. Trust me Jeff -- I get that part. The question is have the changes made in the most recent of times really elevated the course beyond where it was previously ? That's the part in major league dispute here.

I'll ask you do you see those changes as a benefit. The second cut -- the narrowing of playing corridors -- the extension of tees to extreme lengths -- the removal of mounds and the cutting pattern of grass back to the tees as a plus? Please weigh in if you like.

You also say "quite short" -- for who ? Tiger in his '97 days -- Lefty in his. What about the bulk of other players -- when Crenshaw last won the Masters he routinely was hitting a fairway metal to the 15th. The idea that the courser had been reduced to wedge-ola because of technology doesn't pan out -- it's as quick and e-z justification for what was to come.

The entire field also wasn't reaching every par-5 in such a risk-free set-up. Just ask Curtis Strange that in '85 and others too numerous to mention. The risk was always there and when you add the pressure of the moment it showed itself to be true countless times.

I am not "freaking out" Jeff -- how about preserving what worked previously instead of the knee-jerk desire one can clearly see -- assuming you have been watching. The officials know full well that what they have done needs to be softened during the weekend with predictable pin locations (see #16 in that collection bowl area on Sundays) instead of the one Jack handled during his final round in '75.

Jeff -- you say rough ? Are you serious ? What rough ? The course I saw from 1976 forward until the insertion of the "second cut" was spacious in the way it should be, No need to add something that didn't do anything biut narrow down the entire place.

By the way when you speak about what RTJ did -- the 11th and 16th holes he envisioned only added to the aura of the course. They didn't change them in the hideous fashion one sees today with the "new" 7th and 11th holes. Please defend those outcomes -- I'd love to hear your excuses on that front.

Matt,
They played golf at ANGC before 1976, and there was rough. Just look at old pictures of the course and tournament since you don't believe me. Or you could ask Jim Lewis.
Why is taking #11 from a drive and pitch par 4 (and yes driveable by the longest) and turning it into a long par 4 out of a chute, any different than what was done at #7 recently. Both holes can still be played from member's tees at original distances.
Answer, because one happened in your golfing memory lifetime so it's therefore unacceptable.

Leave the "heavy lifting" on this to those who have done the "heavy lifting", and thus by your decree, are qualified to evaluate the course in question, Otherwise it's" just a seat of the pants opinion". having not played it, you don't have the "mental image" or ability to understand the "context by which I made my statements"

Matt,
I'm just having a little fun so don't go nuts.
Of course I preferred #7 as a drive and pitch hole and I don't like many of the pines and AWFUL pine beds, but the course is still plenty open (sure they've lost a few angles) and the rough's effect is minimal (and there was rough pre 70's).
I'm saying it's still a top 10 course and the majority of back tee changes were needed to maintain its' status as an elite major.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Be serious -- the "rough," as you call it prior to '76 was no where NEAR what you see today and the "second cut." Let's call it apples to apples please.

When you say the back tees were "needed" -- the issue is for who ? 5-6 guys are in the gorilla mode so what they did was Tiger proof the course so others of lesser strength can have a serious go at the championship. I appreciate you conceding the key elements I mentioned -- you say, it's still wide -- how do you figure that? Compared to a tour width fairway ?

ANGC was the unquestioned leader in maxing out playability while still giving the world's best a scoreable (presuming you had a solid ball-striking day and could roll the flatstick).

Jeff, regarding #11 -- is a joke. The hole was moved for a slight fade and then they added THAT FOREST on the right side -- the angles have been reduced to a one-way dimenson in playing the hole. Allow for some creativity -- not the predictable US Open style. We already have that major style in June - do we need a repeat in April ?

Jeff, check out the comments made by Nicklaus, Player, Crenshaw and Watson -- I mean, what do they know about the course ?

In regards to the only those who have played can comment answer -- that's fine. Justr be sure it's applied TO ALL -- that includes those who are architects and those who post here and those who weigh in through photos and the like. Have no issue with that being the standard -- just apply it to all.

Jeff -- final question-- do you prefer the existing ANGC -- or the one that existed in '97 when Tiger first won? The answer will say plenty. Top ten course? Not for me -- I prefer the version that worked for so many years -- the extreme changes were not needed and simply smacked of bruised egos and feelings of in inadequacy in my mind.

Thanks for your detailed replies.

Ed:

Love the insults -- definitely a class act in all senses of the word. Happy to weigh my experiences versus yours and most others. You are free to disagree -- enjoy !

[jeffwarne]

Jeff:

Be serious -- the "rough," as you call it prior to '76 was no where NEAR what you see today and the "second cut." Let's call it apples to apples please.

When you say the back tees were "needed" -- the issue is for who ? 5-6 guys are in the gorilla mode so what they did was Tiger proof the course so others of lesser strength can have a serious go at the championship. I appreciate you conceding the key elements I mentioned -- you say, it's still wide -- how do you figure that? Compared to a tour width fairway ?

ANGC was the unquestioned leader in maxing out playability while still giving the world's best a scoreable (presuming you had a solid ball-striking day and could roll the flatstick).

Jeff, regarding #11 -- is a joke. The hole was moved for a slight fade and then they added THAT FOREST on the right side -- the angles have been reduced to a one-way dimenson in playing the hole. Allow for some creativity -- not the predictable US Open style. We already have that major style in June - do we need a repeat in April ?

Jeff, check out the comments made by Nicklaus, Player, Crenshaw and Watson -- I mean, what do they know about the course ?

In regards to the only those who have played can comment answer -- that's fine. Justr be sure it's applied TO ALL -- that includes those who are architects and those who post here and those who weigh in through photos and the like. Have no issue with that being the standard -- just apply it to all.

Jeff -- final question-- do you prefer the existing ANGC -- or the one that existed in '97 when Tiger first won? The answer will say plenty. Top ten course? Not for me -- I prefer the version that worked for so many years -- the extreme changes were not needed and simply smacked of bruised egos and feelings of in inadequacy in my mind.

Thanks for your detailed replies.

Ed:

Love the insults -- definitely a class act in all senses of the word. Happy to weigh my experiences versus yours and most others. You are free to disagree -- enjoy !

Matt,
It's still wide.
The rough is what an inch?
The fact that the great Champions you reference could still comptete at ANGC well into their 60's is proof that the ball/equipment ratio was out of whack.
What 60 + year old players was Nicklaus battling in his prime at Augusta? (yet Nicklaus was still contending in his 60's and the others were making cuts)
If you think only 5-6 players were hitting 3 wood, mid-short iron on 13 you weren't paying attention.
To ANGC credit, they restored the integrity of those holes rather than taking the cop out route of simply making them par 4's.

I recently had a conversation with Bruce Devlin who double eagled #8 back in the day. The only person to do so.
I congratulated him and mentioned it was a big deal because nobody used to reach that green in two.
he agreed and couldn't remember any other time he had.
Nowdays they hit irons to it, despite it being lengthened.
How can you say they didn't need to lengthen 13 and 15?

So to answer your question.
The course is better than it was in 97 for TODAY's BALL AND PLAYER.
If they played the 97 length with today's ball (given '97 weather) it'd be a lot more than just Tiger hitting wedges to 15 and 3 wood -short iron to 13.

Preferences-no rough
                 use short tee on 7 for 2 days
lose the stupid new pines and beds

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Will provide more detail shortly -- but who is hitting irons into #8. Dustin Johnson -- Quiros, JB Holmes ?

Big deal.

Others are needing to stripe a tee ball and nail a metal fairway and given the green contour it's not a cinch four by any means.

The issue is providing balance so that long and mid-length players are being responsibly tested.

The old time champs were successful because of their knowledge of the course but check out their comments after Hootie went wild. Far from flattering.

Jeff, just remember this -- the folks there have to soften the layout to permit players to shoot better on the weekend for the entertainment value. They know few people really want to see an April version of the US Open.

[Ed Oden]

Matt, with all the snide comments, condescension and haughtiness you routinely display on this site, I find it a bit ironic that you would be offended by my electing one of the two options you gave me in post #191.  Nevertheless, I can see how you could interpret my comment as an insult and that is not my style and is out of character for me.  So I sincerely apologize if you took my response as insulting.  My intent was not to offend you, but rather to voice my personal opinion that you have no credibility whatsoever notwithstanding your vast experience.

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

So under your reasoning -- two wrongs make a right?

It's OK for you to say what you wish -- I can handle it and have before. My apologies to you and others who feel my comments cross lines of respect.

If you feel I have no credibility then so be it -- for you.

I explained that people can take my comments as they wish and discard them just as quickly as a fast food wrapper.

I also said based on my previous comments -- that if walking a course is determined by many to be insuffcient -- then it should apply to all people. My main comment was on those who weigh in via photos and the like. I think that's too far removed to count for anything. But then again what the hell do I know since I have no credibility.

[Ed Oden]

Matt, two wrongs don't make a right.  That's why I apologized. 

PS - I think you confuse experience with credibility.  They are not the same thing.

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

My credibility comes with my experiences. You can see it however you wish.

Read what I posted previously Ed -- I clarified my position and said simply that
should walking be viewed as insufficient -- I have no issue with that -- so long as it
applies to all.

[David Kelly]

David:
You answered the question I asked with a "no."
But then you provide an out for Doak and other architects as a favored class that can such things. Makes perfect sense to me.

Matt,

Doak - yes, other architects - who knows.  I value Doak's opinion based on the book(s) he wrote, his many posts on here and things I have heard him say. There are people on and off GCA (including you) whose opinion on a golf course I would take seriously even if they have only walked it. Alternatively there are people on and off GCA who I wouldn't trust to be able to count the number of holes on a golf course.  But I think everyone's analysis of a course would be much improved if they had played it in addition to or instead of just walking it.

But you are not grasping my point that as a matter of policy I think it would be ridiculous to have a ratings panel and 1) allow the raters to rate courses they have not played and 2) give those walked only ratings equal weight with the ratings of those who have played the course. 

Capisce?

[Carl Nichols]

The question is have the changes made in the most recent of times really elevated the course beyond where it was previously ? That's the part in major league dispute here.

Matt-
You seem to be all over the place in this thread.  Are you simply arguing that the recent changes haven't made the course better than it was before -- as your quote above states is the "part in major league dispute"?  If that's your argument, it's certainly a straw man, as I haven't seen anyone argue that ANGC's current ranking is correct because the course is currently better than it was five years ago.  Instead, most people seem to be arguing that the recent changes, even if not all good, don't drop the current incarnation of the course out of the very upper echelon of courses.  Indeed, I would think most people might grant you the point that the changes (or some of them) haven't been great, but that what's there today (not what could be there today) is still top 10/5/3 whatever.

[Steve Burrows]

Ed:

My credibility comes with my experiences. You can see it however you wish.

Matt,

I might be mistaken here, but I don't think that Ed's comments have much (if anything) to do with your position on walking golf courses, or Augusta, or otherwise.  And personally, I don't doubt the volume of of course that you have played and I do think you have a decent grasp on design because of that experience, but that does not in itself establish credibility.  Consider that former President Bush has degrees from Yale and Harvard, yet his credibility as a leader was in constant debate.  Likewise, current President Obama has experiences at Columbia, Harvard and the Univeristy of Chicago, but his opinon on a range of subjects is hardly unimpeachable.  Experience alone does not grant credibility.

Indeed, it is your demeanor on this site, your ostensible arrogance in having played such an array of courses and your dismissive attitude towards others opinions (which you vigrorously maintain despite your regular offer to everyone to have their own opinion) where you lose credibility.  Also, remember that this is not personal interaction with other people.  It is an on-line forum where nuance of language is not always comprehended, and so even small mis-steps can be seen as hostile.  You seem to make more of these mis-steps than the average participant.  As it stands, you're just another guy among 1,500, and many (including myself) have no reason to grant you credibility until you your delivery techniques match your apparent knowledge of the subject.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()