Not Pimping Our Site, But We May Have A Convert!

[Ronald Montesano]

One of our writers, probably our most prolific, wrote a piece about golf course architecture, entirely unsolicited by me or Kevin Lynch. I haven't read it yet, but want to let you guys know (as if you didn't already suspect) that we do have the power to bring people into the tent. Here's a link to the piece...

http://buffalogolfer.com/wordpress/what-should-a-third-hole-be/

[George Pazin]

"Still, I believe that golf courses should have a similar flow."

Precisely the opposite of my own feelings. And experiences.

He's not converting to my religion...

[jeffwarne]

"Still, I believe that golf courses should have a similar flow."

Precisely the opposite of my own feelings. And experiences.

He's not converting to my religion...

I thought surely I simply had the wrong link...

[Garland Bayley]

Ronald,

Read his stuff before linking it.

He's an atheist.

[Bob_Huntley]

George,

I must agree with you. The guy has just knocked Cypress Point off the board.

No. 3 is a par three.
No. 4 is a par four
No. 5 is a par five.

Horrors.

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Maybe he has a point but just didn't take it far enough. For instance, I wouldn't want the 17th hole to be a par 17, or the eighteenth hole to be a par 18 (known in the old days as a seventeen shotter.)   For that matter, I wouldn't like a second hole to be a par 2.  Too hard to eagle.

[Bill_McBride]

No editor?

I have to agree with the above.  Predictability is about the last thing I'm looking for in a golf course.

But it's nice to see somebody stick his neck out.  

[jeffwarne]

Maybe he has a point but just didn't take it far enough. For instance, I wouldn't want the 17th hole to be a par 17, or the eighteenth hole to be a par 18 (known in the old days as a seventeen shotter.)   For that matter, I wouldn't like a second hole to be a par 2.  Too hard to eagle.

I just get frustrated when the best I can do on #1 is par.

Sux when you either get bogie or worse or buy a bunch of drinks.

[Jud_T]

This guy would hate Kingsley...

[jeffwarne]

This guy would hate Kingsley...

Why, no "strong line of trees down the right side of #1"?

[Ronald Montesano]

It's interesting that you guys PRESUMED that his conversion might occur in one fell swoop (whatever a fallen swoop is...)

Isn't it closed-minded of you to react the way you did?

I was hoping that someone might comment "it's great that he's not just thinking about what he likes, but that he actually put it into writing."

Bill, are you available to edit? We pay a decent wage...in smiles.

[Mark Saltzman]

Ron,

Despite all the negative comments thus far, I enjoyed the piece.

I have often thought about what I like in a 1st/18th hole. I've never taken it farther to think about what I like in x hole between them. Honestly, I don't think the course should be that formulaic.

Do you agree in principle that a course should follow a set flow?

Shinnecock Hills is often cited as having a phenomenal flow of holes. Could another course replicate that?

[Michael George]

I honestly don't think this article at all resembles the feelings of most on this site.  I think I probably feel like Tom Doak, Mike Nuzzo, Jeff Braeur, Tim Nugent and Jim Urbina must feel when amateurs like me spout off re: design issues.  You know the post is wrong but you really don't know if or how to respond.

The guy does not mention the routing of the golf course one time.  Doesn't an architect have to work within the constraints of a good routing.  What if the best routing calls for an easy opening?  

Accordingly to his theory, Augusta National has a terrible start as #1 is a hard hole, #2 is a birdie hole and #3 is a birdie hole.  I guess MacKenzie and his successors just got it wrong.  

If this site has taught me one thing, when confronted between having the best holes and best routing versus some pre-ordained sequence of holes, the best holes and best routing should always win - assuming the client wants the best golf course.  My guess is this writer would hate the back to back par 3's at Cypress Point and Pacific Dunes.
 

[jeffwarne]

It's interesting that you guys PRESUMED that his conversion might occur in one fell swoop (whatever a fallen swoop is...)

Isn't it closed-minded of you to react the way you did?

I was hoping that someone might comment "it's great that he's not just thinking about what he likes, but that he actually put it into writing."

Bill, are you available to edit? We pay a decent wage...in smiles.

I'm a little confused.
You post a link to an article that's pure drivel (from your most "prolific writer"), yet we're supposed to feel bad because we remark that it's drivel?

Why would  anyone want someone to comment that "it's great that he actually put it into writing" if we think it's drivel.

No doubt there's a part two we're not privy to yet, doesn't change the fact that part one was drivel.

Look forward to welcoming him to the tent

[George Pazin]

Ron, I am delighted to see anyone think about design. And my own views have changed rather substantially from when I started thinking about it to now (I will leave it to others to determine if they've evolved, grown, followed or merely changed). So from that perspective, two thumbs up.

I just find the ideas somewhat odd. If any casual observer were to peruse the top 10, or 25, or whatever, would he find a similar flow among those courses? Or, if he found a common theme between them, would it likely be flow/hole par sequence/hole difficulty sequence?

I often marvel at the variety of thought and opinion in our wonderful world. In that sense, I'll praise the thoughts as something that would never occur to me...and never will.

[David Kelly]

Isn't it closed-minded of you to react the way you did?

Not when we disagree with it. Had you read the 6 short paragraphs before recommending it you probably would have disagreed with it as well.  

[Chris DeNigris]

And some of you wonder why more everyday golfers aren't more into architecture?

Or maybe you just prefer it that way

[Dan Kelly]

Next time, maybe you should just pimp your site!

As for the piece: It's just, IMO, silly -- to say that what's great about golf courses is that they're all different, but what would make them even better is their being all more or less the same.

If you agree with that, raise your hands. Anyone? Bueller?

On the positive side (still trying to keep my New Year's Resolution!): I like the line about a punch in the mouth.

[Mark Saltzman]

Just as one should not tell a beginner golfer that he is terrible for fear of driving him from the game, perhaps a new GCA enthusiast should not have his opinions called drivel.

[Bill_McBride]

It's interesting that you guys PRESUMED that his conversion might occur in one fell swoop (whatever a fallen swoop is...)

Isn't it closed-minded of you to react the way you did?

I was hoping that someone might comment "it's great that he's not just thinking about what he likes, but that he actually put it into writing."

Bill, are you available to edit? We pay a decent wage...in smiles.

Like I said, at least he had the guts to stick his neck out!

Edit?   Sure, send it on.  I was just a bit surprised you would put something up on your site without even a gentle edit.

[Dan Kelly]

I often marvel at the variety of thought and opinion in our wonderful world. In that sense, I'll praise the thoughts as something that would never occur to me...and never will.

George --

One of my column's readers labeled faint praise a "corn dog" -- an insult wrapped in a compliment. One of my favorite expressions, ever.

You should all feel free to use it!

Dan

[jeffwarne]

Just as one should not tell a beginner golfer that he is terrible for fear of driving him from the game, perhaps a new GCA enthusiast should not have his opinions called drivel.

If a beginning golfer entered the Buffalo Open, I suspect there would be be comments worse than drivel

[David Kelly]

Just as one should not tell a beginner golfer that he is terrible for fear of driving him from the game, perhaps a new GCA enthusiast should not have his opinions called drivel.

I just looked at his site and he has hundreds of posts about golf architecture so I don't think a condescending pat on the head is called for in this instance.  He wrote what he wrote, it was put in front of a new audience and many didn't agree with his opinion.  Unless the self proclaimed "The Golf Guide to Buffalo-Niagara" is written by a ten year old I'm pretty sure he can handle the criticism.  Otherwise why write?

[Scott Warren]

Mark S

Just as one should not tell a beginner golfer that he is terrible for fear of driving him from the game, perhaps a new GCA enthusiast should not have his opinions called drivel.

Of course he should. Constructively, of course. How else are you supposed to learn?

But perhaps publishing neophyte thoughts on any topic for the entire world to see is best avoided. Writing these thoughts down can often help you to clarify them or process them in your mind, so the writing process can be very helpful, but I guess there is often a reason people used to write their thoughts in diaries and generally leave it at that.

One of the most interesting things to me about the internet is that people don't hesitate to publish online to a global audience what they wouldn't dream of sending to a newspaper or magazine editor for consideration.

[Ronald Montesano]

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the title of the thread. For guys like Chris D., Mark S., George P. and others who were not emotionally scarred as youth, I imagine you already did. I'm going to break it down from the "But" on.

We ==> Those interested in golf course architecture;

May==> a modal or auxiliary verb indicating possibility, not probability nor certainty;

Have==> a verb, indicating possession, unless one is foolish or blind enough to abandon/release the thing possessed;

A==> indefinite article, suggesting the impending approach of a noun;

Convert==> the anticipated noun, one who once had a set of beliefs but no longer does.


I'm glad that the jumpers on this forum, the ones who were converted to ODG GCA by a lightning strike on the road to Damascus, betrayed their true feelings. Although they stopped short of vulgar language and direct insult, civility was certainly lacking.

The Mouth That Roars (not me, I assure you, I use a different pseudonym) is a man and can handle the criticism. Have at his points, leave him some functional criticism that he can use to learn more about the variety of gca that exists out there.

I don't believe that he'll be struck by a bolt, as so many on this site were, converted on the spot, made instantly aware of the way, truth and light of the sacred architectural text. I imagine that his conversion will take place over time, as has mine...slow learners, huh?