[Tom_Doak]

Hi Patrick:

I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part.  I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.

Sebonack is the outlier, and it is so because we were required by the permits to build two artificial ponds -- one for the main irrigation system and a separate one for the greens irrigation system.  Most of the flattest areas on the course were wetlands or wetland buffer areas that were off limits to construction, so these two ponds had to be on the golf course.  And the client Mr. Pascucci had specifically mentioned in our first conversation that he would like to have a par-3 with a nasty water hazard in front of the green, like the 12th at Augusta.

I did site the two ponds and helped to design the two holes around them.  We did not build any other ponds.  Also, you might note that the pond on #8, being pretty large, would have most easily been brought into play on the second shot to the 7th hole, as well, but I went out of my way to screen it from view, instead.

[mike_malone]

When groupthink is a result of uncertainty it can cause distortions in perception   This is common in the stock market. But when there is a clear standard of excellence such as in the best golf courses then groupthink is not as much of a perception problem Many courses like North Berwick and Pennard may get more recognition as the value of quirk increases . However, if they were truly the best they would have contended for that honor many years ago .
There are arguments about the best courses and some say that places like TOC don't deserve their lofty status but I can't recall too many quality arguments made that some very good course is in fact deserving of great status
 I think rating groups like Golfweek want their applicants to have played some of the acknowledged great courses. Is this education or brain washing? I think it is art education

[Tim Martin]

I think rating groups like Golfweek want their applicants to have played some of the acknowledged great courses. Is this education or brain washing? I think it is art education

Mayday-I concur with your hypothesis. There is nothing bad about  providing a frame of reference as it should not inhibit the hopefully evolving skills of the panelists.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hi Patrick:

I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part.  I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.

For discussion purposes, I don't consider a dammed creek/stream as an artificial pond

Sebonack is the outlier, and it is so because we were required by the permits to build two artificial ponds -- one for the main irrigation system and a separate one for the greens irrigation system.  Most of the flattest areas on the course were wetlands or wetland buffer areas that were off limits to construction, so these two ponds had to be on the golf course.  And the client Mr. Pascucci had specifically mentioned in our first conversation that he would like to have a par-3 with a nasty water hazard in front of the green, like the 12th at Augusta.

I did site the two ponds and helped to design the two holes around them.  We did not build any other ponds.  Also, you might note that the pond on #8, being pretty large, would have most easily been brought into play on the second shot to the 7th hole, as well, but I went out of my way to screen it from view, instead.

Tom,

The screening, from # 7 is quite effective.

The pond on the 13th hole, to a great degree, makes the hole.

Without it, the second shot would be on the benign side, with the decisions on the golfers part greatly reduced.
With the pond, the challenge and decision making process is enhanced to a great degree, so I don't see the need to be apologetic.

As to # 8, the pond presents a threatening carry to a green that's situated and contoured to present an enhanced challenge to the golfer as they stand on the tee.

When you can kill two birds with one stone, why not combine an irrigation pond with a hazard on the golf course.

I don't see the need to apologize for introducing either of those ponds, although I know you've taken some flak for the one on # 8.

Adjacent to Sebonack is a course with ponds/water hazards on about 6 holes and I can't recall any substantive criticism of those ponds.

And, adjacent to that course is another with a significant pond on the 6th hole.

And, adjacent to that course is another course with ponds that come into play, and none of those courses, nor their architect, have come under fire for incorporating ponds in their design.

Garland stated that the ponds at ANGC looked artificial, as did Dwight, so I asked them, if their opinion was based upon on-site inspection, or strictly from the limited views they've seen on TV.   And, I've asked them which ponds ? And, how they look artificial.

I'll be intriqued by their answers relative to holes # 11 and # 12, especially in light of the creeks and runoffs that are on the property that feed into those ponds.

[Jim Nugent]

. . . btw, I just read that the sand at ANGC is so white due to its high, pure quartz content, and that "The same stuff in those Augusta National bunkers is now used for silicon chips."

Jim, I've heard, but cannot confirm first hand, that the "sand" used at Augusta is man-ground quartz made at a quartz mine in Mitchell County, NC.

I think you are right.  The article in Golf Mag says, "Augusta National sand is actually a waste product of the feldspar mining process, according to Drew Coleman, professor of geological sciences at the University of North Carolina."

and...

"The Spruce Pine Mining District in northwestern North Carolina is famous for its feldspar and quartz, and since the 1700s feldspar has been mined there. When they mine the feldspar for aluminum, they just discard the quartz. That's the stuff Augusta National uses for its bunkers."

[Dwight Phelps]

VK,

Great post.

Dwight,

Is your analysis based on what the cameras have exposed you to, from their unique, almost one dimensional perspective, or on site observations ?

The cameras can deceive.

They can show you what they want to show you to the exclusion of everything else.

Specifically, what ponds look artificial, and what creates that artificial look ?

Absolutely based on cameras and not personal experience.

The most notably artificial pond (and view) is on 16, and it hits me most when we get the camera view of the spectators on the hillside to the left of the hole and the nice, clean, straight edge of the pond. But, while that's artificial to my eye, the perfect alley with spectators left and the green situated just behind/right of the pond that is created makes for a striking hole. I don't necessarily think that artificial automatically equals bad and Augusta, as it presents itself on television for the Masters, would be an example for me of using artificial means to create a sense of perfection that, while not wholly natural, is wholly engaging and enjoyable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dwight,

Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.

The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle

[David_Elvins]

Hi Patrick:

I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part.  I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.

What about pond you have put in as a diagonal hazard for the tee shot on 6 at RMW? 

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Patrick:

I do avoid putting artificial ponds on my courses for the most part.  I've built a few -- at Sebonack and The Rawls Course and High Pointe and a few others -- but you might also notice that on my highest rated courses, from Bandon to Australia and New Zealand to Florida and Montana and Colorado and Nebraska -- if there are any water features, they were there before I got there.

What about pond you have put in as a diagonal hazard for the tee shot on 6 at RMW? 

I hope you're kidding.  Richard showed me the area where they were going to do some water storage, and I expressed concern over whether it would be in view on #3 or #6.  But I haven't seen what they've done, and I didn't know they'd actually done anything.

[David_Elvins]

95% kidding.  They are not "in play" on 6 but I did hit my tee shot in one.

I am sure once the vegetation has grown they will be less visible and less in play off the tee on 3 and 6 to the extent that they will be rarely noticed.

[Dwight Phelps]

Dwight,

Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.

The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle

Patrick,

I'm aware of the stream and old green site, but, neither, in my opinion, prevent the current iteration from being classified as artificial. I'm also quite sure that the view for a player can be very different from that presented on TV, but just won't prevent me from offering my opinion, otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd never be posting here at all.

[Frank M]

Eastward Ho!, Oak Hill, Royal Montreal are some of my favs that some might take issue with (maybe not Eastward), and I don't care what anyone says. Three different courses, three awesome courses. Then again, don't care for group think.

My tastes are diverse, but all this minimalism is becoming too much for me to handle.

[bstark]

  I for one would love to play the Reverse Jans....

  SAVE SHIVAS.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dwight,

Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.

The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle

Patrick,

I'm aware of the stream and old green site, but, neither, in my opinion, prevent the current iteration from being classified as artificial. I'm also quite sure that the view for a player can be very different from that presented on TV, but just won't prevent me from offering my opinion, otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd never be posting here at all.

Dwight,

Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.

In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.

Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.

I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.

[Dwight Phelps]

Dwight,

Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.

In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.

Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.

I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.

I really don't want to be too snarky in my response here, but I can only conclude that you did not actually read the entirety of my previous posts.  In this thread, I've posted 3 comments that address ANGC.  The first 2 of those comments include the qualification you're looking for and the 3rd is the comment you just replied to:

I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe.

Absolutely based on cameras and not personal experience.

To be honest, I am less worried about 'criticism by being accused of misrepresentation' and am far more worried that criticism directed towards me will be based on an incomplete reading of my comment(s).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dwight,

Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.

In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.

Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.

I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.

I really don't want to be too snarky in my response here, but I can only conclude that you did not actually read the entirety of my previous posts.

I read them in detail.
#'s 54,70, 87, 92 and 96 

In this thread, I've posted 3 comments that address ANGC.  

The first 2 of those comments include the qualification you're looking for and the 3rd is the comment you just replied to:

That's not true, perhaps you should reread what you type.
In your first response, reply # 54, you make NO mention of ANGC.

I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe.

The excerpt you posted above isn't the entirety of what you wrote.
In the interest of complete disclosure, here's what you wrote.
[/size]
I can see where you're coming from, GJ.  
And I do agree that the ponds at ANGC do tend to look quite artificial.  

However, I would also argue that is, at least in part, considered a feature by the 'branding' decision makers of the club.  

I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe.  The grass is too green.  The sand is too white.  The azaleas are preternaturally colorful.  And yes, the ponds are artificial.  All this adds up to a course that holds itself more perfect than Nature.  I don't say any of this to say I dislike ANGC, merely that it seems like the visibly artificial ponds play into this too-perfect brand.


You will note that you don't state whether or not you've ever played or walked ANGC.
You do reference how you "felt about ANGC as presented via TV", but never informed the reader that your sole exposure to ANGC was via TV

As to your response below, that was only AFTER I asked you if your opinion was based exclusively on what you had seen on TV
Your previous responses, without the qualifier, could have led the reader to believe that you had actually been on site and examined these features.

Absolutely based on cameras and not personal experience.

To be honest, I am less worried about 'criticism by being accused of misrepresentation' and am far more worried that criticism directed towards me will be based on an incomplete reading of my comment(s).

I'd be more worried about adequate or complete disclosure when offering an opinion on a golf course that you've never set foot on, especially since my reading comprehension skills remain rather astute.

[Dwight Phelps]

Patrick,

I feel like we've gone far off track here.  I agree that complete disclosure in this area in needed.  I felt I had provided this disclosure in my 'Masters via TV' comment, but am sure I provided it when I responded directly to your question.  After that happened, you sent the following comment:

Before the pond was there, a creek ran down through # 6, in front of the 16th green which was located left of the stream, hence it's a natural waterway that was modified when the green was relocated.

The golfer, standing on the tee, sees the hole and the pond differently than a camera, perched in a tower at a different angle

To which I replied:

I'm aware of the stream and old green site, but, neither, in my opinion, prevent the current iteration from being classified as artificial. I'm also quite sure that the view for a player can be very different from that presented on TV, but just won't prevent me from offering my opinion, otherwise I'm pretty sure I'd never be posting here at all.

Again, remember that at this point I've provided full disclosure on whether I've played ANGC.  Your next response:

Dwight,

Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In order for you to avoid criticism by being accused of misrepresentation, perhaps it would be best to "qualify" your opinion.

In other words, offer your opinion, but clearly state that you've never played or walked ANGC and that your opinion is based solely on what you've seen on TV.

Without that qualifier, those reading your reply could be misled to believe that you've actually observed the feature up close and in person and that based on your observations and analysis of the feature and its surroundings, that you think the feature looks artificial.

I don't think you'd want anyone to think you were being disingenuous by posturing that you had personal insight into the structure and look of the feature, when you've never set foot on the property and are basing your opinion solely on the views provided by the cameras televising the Masters.

Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this?  'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done?  The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled.  Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'.  Go figure.

[Jason Thurman]

"Dwight's post gave me the impression he had played ANGC," said no one ever.

I've got your groupthink right here:

The Dunes Course at The Prairie Club is my second favorite course ever. I have it ahead of Pinehurst No. 2, Crystal Downs, Kingsley, Lawsonia, and plenty of other GCA faves.

Erin Hills is the best public course in Wisconsin.

The Harvester in Iowa is better than Wild Horse in Nebraska. It's close, but clear.

Dormie Club is the worst good course I've ever played. I can't argue that it has a handful of good holes that keep it from being a total loss, but my gut reaction when I think of it is to start drinking.

The Irish course at Whistling Straits is not horrible.

[Garland Bayley]

Give it up Dwight. You are arguing with someone who reserves the right to consider a previously non-existent pond created artificially by damming a stream as not artificial. Neither the dictionary, nor logic shall he follow. He just gets boring.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Give it up Dwight. You are arguing with someone who reserves the right to consider a previously non-existent pond created artificially by damming a stream as not artificial. Neither the dictionary, nor logic shall he follow. He just gets boring.

Garland,

So when a beaver dams a stream, you label the resulting pond as artificial ?  ?  ?

[Jason Thurman]

Come on Pat. You know beavers weren't allowed at ANGC when those ponds were built.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this?


No you didn't.
You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC.

 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done?  

The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled.  

Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on facts
You offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations.
 Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.
When in fact, you never set foot on the property.  Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.
I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression.

Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'.  Go figure.

Actually, it's easy to figure.
It's called intellectual honesty.
It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.

Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts

[Garland Bayley]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Dwight Phelps]

Considering that, prior to your posting this, I'd already made complete disclosure of what you're looking for, why exactly did you feel the need to post this?


No you didn't.
You ONLY made complete disclosure AFTER I asked you if you had been to ANGC.

 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion', but to make sure that I'm not 'accused of misrepresentation', 'misleading' readers, or 'being disingenuous' I need to make sure that I do something I'd already previously done?  

The only conclusion that I can draw is that you don't actually believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion; only those who conform to your rules, on your schedule are so entitled.  

Opinions gain added weight and credibility when they're based on facts
You offered an opinion on the ponds at ANGC without stating whether you had actually seen them, which could lead the reader to believe that you had seen them and were basing your opinion on your personal observations.
 Hence, the reader could think that someone who's been there and had seen the ponds, thinks they're artificial looking.
When in fact, you never set foot on the property.  Thus, without initially qualifying your opinion you misled those who read your opinion.
I'm sure that you understand how the failure to qualify your opinion could lead readers to gain a false impression.

Kind of interesting that such an attitude would show up in a thread about groupthink - 'as long as everyone does it my way, they can offer their opinions'.  Go figure.

Actually, it's easy to figure.
It's called intellectual honesty.
It involves complete disclosure, not veiled references absent complete disclosure.

Now I was prepared to conclude that it was an honest oversight on your part, but your attitude is causing me to have second thoughts

You know what, Patrick, you're exactly right.  I was trying to mislead people into thinking I played the course when I talked about how it came off on TV.  I was really hoping that someone would read my opinion and, in so doing, would fall into my trap of getting them to think I'd played ANGC.  Lord knows, whether or not you've played the course is extremely relevant to a comment about how it comes off on TV.

And then I had the temerity to clarify that I had not played it more than 24 LONG hours later.  This 24 hour window is key, because it allowed me to properly hoodwink those 'target readers' that I'm desperately hoping now believe I've played ANGC.

Thank you for reminding me, a day after I'd made my clarification, that I should clarify this issue.  That was necessary.  You saw through my plan to create a 2nd 24 hour 'target reader' window to engage in intellectual dishonesty on those readers that saw my original comment but missed my previous clarification.

I'm now beginning to fully understand how to post here - I should prepare my post, then send it to you, Patrick, to insure that any possible intellectually dishonest inferences that I've slipped in can be weeded out by an objective party.  I sincerely apologize for thinking that I could engage in this discussion without meeting your requirements, on your schedule.

In the future, please feel free to make it clear to all that any post of mine not pre-cleared by you is entirely invalid.  Thank you for all your assistance, now and in the future.

[George Pazin]

Hecukva post, Dwight.

-----

Maybe everyone has the same favorites because they're actually really special courses and places. And maybe not everyone has had the opportunity to find the little gem in the corner of some overseas destination. Not everything is groupthink, regardless of how much everyone loves to throw around the word, on here and elsewhere.

Heck, my two favorite courses in the world are places I haven't even played yet. I know I will someday, and I know they will be special to me, if only because of the individuals and processes involved. They happen to be highly regarded on here - does that make it groupthink? Not bloody likely (said in the worst Jerry Seinfeld/George Costanza impersonating English accents possible)...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()