[William_G]

it is no doubt harder to think young when you are old and established as you must get rid of all you've learned

as opposed to being young, and everything you see is new, and what you see is what you know

yet with today's plethora of info via technology and the worldwideweb, change can be rapid, for better or for worse

timelessness is the goal for anything worthy of greatness

[Peter Pallotta]

It seems to me a generational change is in the offing. There have been too many really good corses built since 1990 or so. They want a bigger presence in the top 50. Frankly, I don't see any reason why many of them shouldn't have it.
Bob

Bob - I hadn't thought it through as well as this, but you're right -- there HAVE BEEN just too many good/great new courses built in the last while, and, ironically, the younger generation will be using the very same tools and examples passed down from the earlier generation(s) to make their case for why some of the old greats should be supplanted by some of the new greats.  

Peter

[Terry Lavin]

Old guys are forever looking to objectify and quantify and identify (truths, numbers/money, and patterns respectively), and have experience to bolster their claims, for better or worse; young guys couldn't give a shite about anyone else's opinion/truths or about how the numbers will work out or about historical patterns, and they have overflowing self-confidence to rely upon, for better or worse. Bogey's young clients are out there doing it; Bogey and I and the rest of us are in here, discussing it. The young dance, the old tap their toes -- it's all in the natural order of things. Of course, there are exceptions, just as there are with that old saying: "If you're not a socialist when you're young you have not heart; if you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no head". And it seems to me that, while there's no reason in the world for any under-30 to love Crystal Downs (their fathers' course) more than Kingsley (their course), it would be just like an under-30 year old to love best whatever it is they love best and not give two hoots about any old guy's analysis - regardless of whether it pegs them as old school or uninformed or not. That's my banal old guy analysis of this old guy's thread about an old guy's course holding its own.

Peter

I'll take a different tack, as suggested recently by Edwin Edwards, the disgraced Louisiana politician, in commenting on his fifth wife (50 years his junior) who said, "You're only as young as the woman you feel."  A timeless classic, indeed.

[Bill Seitz]

In the last week I've listened to whole albums by Skrillex, Frank Sinatra, Bob Dylan, Pusha T, and The Stone Roses. I don't believe in genres, consensus, or the downward spiral of modernity. I just love what's great.

I sure as hell hope it was the first Stone Roses album (or the collection of B-Sides they released from that period).

[David Davis]

I like to think of myself as generation X with generation Y technical knowledge but still the wisdom to not believe everything I read and when researching on internet about some GCA related topic to not simply take the first Golf Club Atlas thread link (put together by some opinionated generation W'er) that I come across, unless of course it's correct.

As for Torrey Pines - can't imagine it making the list of the Top 100 Courses to Host a US Open myself but I like to exaggerate a little.

[Peter Pallotta]

Terry - ha ha, timeless classic, indeed. They don't make 'em like the used to, huh?  Of course, the trouble is that one way or another Mr. Edwards won't be 'feeling young' for very long, and not by his own choice in any event...

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

In terms of golf, I think access to the great courses may be at play.  I think many of the modern courses are a bit more accessible than many of the old guard at such an early stage of our golfing lives.  I'm not necessarily saying that those courses are better or more revered because of that, but we just generally have more experience with them.

There is something to this viewpoint, too.  We all tend to fall in love with a course that helps shape our opinions of golf architecture when we are relatively young.  For those among us who are older, these are naturally older courses.  For the younger set, many do not have access to some of the classics in their younger years, so they latch onto the cool new course they find first.

This would explain why Kingsley's biggest fans are all younger guys who are not members of a prominent, older course.  But it does not completely address why they are so dismissive of the opinions of others who are more familiar with such courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

TD - I don't know if I'd use the term dismissive, but off your post and Chris' I'd suggest this: that your best courses (both public and private) are all accessible to the younger set (and to greater numbers of that younger set) in an unprecedented way; and that, as Bob suggests, this -- along with the quality of the courses, obviously -- will play a part in a kind of changing of the guard and a shake-up of the top 10s and top 20s and top 100 lists the likes of which we haven't seen in many many decades. Just one reason I* keep believing that Ballyneal will one day in the not too distant future take a top spot (with OM and PD close on its heels).

Peter
* I am older in years, but young in gca experience -- so I bring the best of both worlds!  

[JMEvensky]

I'll take a different tack, as suggested recently by Edwin Edwards, the disgraced Louisiana politician, in commenting on his fifth wife (50 years his junior) who said, "You're only as young as the woman you feel."  A timeless classic, indeed.

Not as good as his live boy/dead girl line.

[JC Jones]

This would explain why Kingsley's biggest fans are all younger guys who are not members of a prominent, older course.  

They aren't?  How do you know this?  Are you just talking about the 5 or 6 people posting on the other thread?  If so, how do you know their membership status with other "more prominent" clubs?  There very well could be big fans of Kingsley who are members at "more prominent" courses.

Also, for an anti-rankings guy you seem to be coming back to the rankings a lot.  What do you mean by "more prominent"?  Are you talking prominent today or are you talking 30 years ago?  Prominence obviously changes, should membership at a club that is considered prominent today be a barometer for opinion validity?  What if the club is no longer prominent?

But it does not completely address why they are so dismissive of the opinions of others who are more familiar with such courses.

Who has been dismissive of Crystal Downs or any classic course or dismissive of others who are more familiar with "more prominent" courses?  Do you consider disagreement to be dismissive?  If anything, the classic course apologists have been and are dismissive of those who think highly of some modern courses.

When you hit the scene challenging the "ranking" of various courses back in the day, were you being dismissive?

[Matthew Lloyd]

After reading more of these posts I would make the case that there is much more middle ground between the generations than is being suggested. I agree with Chris and the others about how a lot of us younger golfers (I'll be 37 next month) simply haven't had a chance to play as many of the older classics, so I definitely think this is more about access.  I played Crystal Downs once and loved it, but it's hard for me to have the same connection to it as Kingsley, which I've played 200 times probably. But, on the flip side, growing up in Columbus, OH I played Scioto a thousand times but don't really know Muirfield, The Golf Club or Double Eagle, so in that instance I'm biased in favor of the older course. So I really don't think we're disagreeing. I really do believe this is just a matter of exposure and formative influences.  

[Chris DeToro]

So I really don't think we're disagreeing. I really do believe this is just a matter of exposure and formative influences.  

And I don't think there's anything wrong with this.  

I've played a variety of the great "accessible" courses both public and private.  Some of them have made my best or favorite list and some of them have not.  Is a course great just because it has elite status outside of the quality of its course?  I know this made a thread at one point though perhaps not in this one.  I try to evaluate a course regardless of status.  If it's good, it's good in my opinion.  

I also don't see anything wrong with modern courses climbing the ranks.  Kingsley is a great course.  And maybe the amount of posts that thread is getting has a lot to do with the simple fact that it's a great course that more people here have experience with.  I've played CD once and think it's a great course as well.  I just don't have as much experience with it to talk more in depth about it.  Would I rank CD over Kingsley?  I wouldn't, but that's not to say that anyone that does is wrong either.  I'm not sure that it's about being dismissive, and I hope for my generation's sake that it's not about that, as much as it is that maybe the younger ones have more to say about it and can speak more impassioned about it.  

[Tom_Doak]

This would explain why Kingsley's biggest fans are all younger guys who are not members of a prominent, older course.  

They aren't?  How do you know this?  Are you just talking about the 5 or 6 people posting on the other thread?  If so, how do you know their membership status with other "more prominent" clubs?  There very well could be big fans of Kingsley who are members at "more prominent" courses.

Also, for an anti-rankings guy you seem to be coming back to the rankings a lot.  What do you mean by "more prominent"?  Are you talking prominent today or are you talking 30 years ago?  Prominence obviously changes, should membership at a club that is considered prominent today be a barometer for opinion validity?  What if the club is no longer prominent?

But it does not completely address why they are so dismissive of the opinions of others who are more familiar with such courses.

Who has been dismissive of Crystal Downs or any classic course or dismissive of others who are more familiar with "more prominent" courses?  Do you consider disagreement to be dismissive?  If anything, the classic course apologists have been and are dismissive of those who think highly of some modern courses.

When you hit the scene challenging the "ranking" of various courses back in the day, were you being dismissive?

JC:  I'm sure my sweeping generalizations above do not fit every fan of The Kingsley Club.  However, maybe they hit too close to home.  If you want to make this personal, let's turn it around.  Let's test my theory out on one of Kingsley's biggest fans -- you.

1 - Are you a member of another club?

2 - How many of the top-100 courses have you played?  

3 - How many of them have you played more than twice?

4 - How many of them had you played before you started playing Kingsley regularly?


For myself, the only club at which I'd been a member prior to Crystal Downs was being a national member of the TPC at Sawgrass, when it first opened.  [It cost $50.]

By the time I saw Crystal Downs the first time, I'd already been to Merion, Pine Valley, Oakmont, SFGC, LACC, and about 20 others in the top 100, and I was surprised how well it held up to them.  

I hadn't played many of them more than once, except for Pebble Beach and Cypress Point and Harbour Town.  That's probably how Cypress Point became the gold standard for me.

By the time I came back to Michigan and started playing Crystal Downs regularly, I had spent my year in the UK and seen about 500 courses, and I'd played a bunch of the best ones multiple times.

[Jud_T]

Clearly access does play a role for the younger set vis-a-vis multiple plays of private clubs.  Of course I'd wager that most of the older set hasn't played many private Top 100 courses more than twice either unless they have reciprocal arrangements or are members of numerous clubs.  As the Old Guy who's a fan of Kingsley, I'll nominate myself to take one for the team and evaluate the Downs thoroughly through multiple repeat plays.  Please IM me and I'll tell you where to forward my honorary membership info...

[Tim Bert]

Tom - I don't understand what your questions to JC have to do with being dismissive. What if he responds that he has never played a top 100 course?  It might mean he is uneducated on great architecture but that doesn't mean he is dismissive of others opinions.  You were as dismissive (or more) of others opinions as anyone. In fact you went out of your way to mock and dismiss others opinions proactively before they were even stated. Remember that post?

I stopped posting my hole by hole match on the other thread because I realized I was in the minority enough in my opinion and also unschooled enough in great architecture that my results would be dismissed as homerism or stupidity.

I have played a decent but not great mix of modern and classic American greats.  The list of courses I have seen is far from complete.  I have no international experience.  I count Cypress, Pebble, Riviera, Oakland Hills, and Crystal Downs amongst my favorite classics. I count Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, Sand Hills, and Kingsley amongst my favorite moderns.

I believe I played every course on that list above before Kingsley except the other two Michigan courses.  I know this will be very difficult for you to believe but I joined Kingsley largely because I thought it stacked up well amongst the greats I had experienced not the other way around.  I think there are several members there who are strong advocates because they love the golf course and not because someone forced them to join or it was just "the best they could do".

I played Kingsley and Crystal Downs for the first time on the same trip. Two rounds at each. I loved Crystal Downs but I was completely shocked at the combination of the severity of the slope and the speed at which they maintained the greens.  10 and 11 were nearly unplayable that day and not much different when I played again several years later. I often find myself surprised that both Mike and you can be members at the course and not have some inuence over width and green speed. Perhaps it is because you don't agree with he need for a change or perhaps it is because you don't feel like you should overshadow the club, and I can respect either one.

Please don't dismiss others opinions as dismissive just because they aren't in lockstep with yours. You can dismiss us as silly, stupid, uneducated, or whatever else you want because that may be true but very few here are dismissive of your opinion.

[Josh Tarble]

I hadn't chimed in yet because I wasn't sure what to say in this thread, but have thought about it probably a little too much.  But being the one that started the Kingsley v. Crystal thread, I've kind of figured out what my point is.

Of course part of the factor has to do with access.  For a while I was almost dismissive of my own opinion because I hadn't seen many courses.  I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of what makes good courses and a REALLY good understanding of what I like     Part of why I loved Crystal was that it seemed to hit on many my own thoughts and feelings of what made a course great.  I feel like it confirmed my own opinion, whether I needed confirmation or not.  And then when I went to play Kingsley, I got a lot of the same reaffirmations.  It didn't matter if it was ranked #1 or #1000, I really liked what I was playing.  Sure, are there some things I didn't like...yes but I could say that about both courses.  It's hard not to compare them when they share the same climate and ground conditions and I played them back to back on the same trip.

I wrote this in the other thread and I think it's applicable here:

Crystal Downs was so far above and beyond what I had been able to play to that point it's amazing.  If I play 10 courses that are better in my lifetime, I will have led a great golf playing career.  

The next day I was able to play Kingsley for the first time and was completely blown away.  I don't think Kingsley is as audacious as Crystal (and that's saying a lot), but Kingsley is incredibly wild and fun and really good golf.  After playing Crystal I was worried that Kingsley wouldn't live up to the hype - and there are a lot of Kingsley hype men on here - or be able to compare.  But came away realizing a few things 1) Kingsley and Crystal are incredibly similar while both being vastly different 2) Both are incredibly good 3) If you could play either one every day, you'd be a lucky golfer

At the start of the thread I truly meant that this wasn't to disparage either course, but more-so to point out how good both of them are and how similar they are.  It's just a lot more fun to have a match then to type up 18 holes of comparisons.

I have formed a lot of my opinions through playing local courses, reading books and looking a photographs.  I haven't been as fortunate to play as many great courses as others.  Just because a couple courses match what my opinions happen to be, doesn't mean I am right, wrong, free-thinking or another "sheep."  It just means that I had fun playing golf at a really cool course with a bunch of good friends and good people.

[BHoover]

Josh, I think you said it best.  What does it matter where a course falls on some (ultimately, subjective and arbitrary) ranking list?  What matters (or at least, what should matter) is whether the course is one that you find to be fun to play.  That's how I felt about Kingsley and that's why I have strong opinions about other courses that I hold in high esteem.

On another note, this particular thread has really turned me off to Golf Club Atlas.  I have begun to feel, rightly or wrongly, that some here are judging how others view certain courses for ridiculous reasons.  Why should I have to justify my opinion of a particular course to someone else?  What does my age have to do with whether my opinion is any less valid than someone else?  What does it matter how many Top 100 courses I've played before I form an opinion about a certain course?  Quite frankly, there are a number of reasons that I have not played many courses in the Top 100--access, time, money, my wife would rather I spend time at my home club than traveling to see another course.  

I hope my attitude toward GCA improves because I've met a lot of great people through this site.  But this thread, for whatever reason, has really rubbed me the wrong way.

[Jason Thurman]

In the last week I've listened to whole albums by Skrillex, Frank Sinatra, Bob Dylan, Pusha T, and The Stone Roses. I don't believe in genres, consensus, or the downward spiral of modernity. I just love what's great.

I sure as hell hope it was the first Stone Roses album (or the collection of B-Sides they released from that period).

Is there even another one? I like to pretend the rest of the Stone Roses catalog(ue) doesn't exist.

[Jud_T]

Brian,

Don't get your panties in a bunch.  If it's not one thing it's another.  I'm probably one of the best-traveled 18 handicaps you'll ever meet, but my opinions aren't taken seriously because I'm considered too much of a hack to truly understand the shot values of strong players, even if I represent the average golfer much more than they do.  I'm one of Tom's biggest fans and will pour over the new Confidential Guides endlessly (in fact I was just this week accused via IM of being too much of a blatent butt-boy on this site and ignorant of his ulterior motives), but lets be clear about 2 things if we're putting all the cards on the table:  1)  Tom is a member of Crystal Downs and perhaps the club's biggest champion and  2) He didn't get the job at Kingsley and Mike did.  Draw your own conclusions...

[BHoover]

Jud, I think you've hit the nail on the head...I put on my wife's underwear this morning and they're just too small.  But I get your point.  I should have just said that I don't think anyone should give a damn what anyone else thinks about their opinion(s) of a certain course(s).

For the record, I don't (a) own a copy of the Cofidential Guide (don't plan to buy one), (b) understand or care about the meaning of the Doak scale, and (c) have not yet played a course designed by GCA's favorite architect.  

[Jason Thurman]

I don't know about my biases toward one golf course or another. I have no arguments either way on that. And I won't go quite as far as Hoover to say that I'm turned off to GolfClubAtlas.com by this thread. I really think Michael tried to start it as an older guy (no offense intended Mike) who hears "The Times They Are A-Changin'" and says "Yeah, these young guys might have a point sometimes" as opposed to "Get off my lawn with that loud rock and roll!"

What I do know is that this thread is confirming a lot of my biases about GolfClubAtlas. Maybe it's fair to ask how many times a poster has played X course. But if a person has to play a course at least twice before their opinion counts, I would say that once they've played a course more than 15 times they're developing a whole different lack of proper perspective.

I'm okay with just admitting that we're all shaped by our own experiences and thought processes, and that those things are entirely subjective for all of us. Josh's post talks a bit to the universal experience of dismissing our own opinion, as though the opinion of a magazine panel, an old angry man, or a preeminent architect is somehow more valid than ours. Well, to Hell with that. These old dudes might be wiser in many ways, but I'll be damned if they have any clue about which golf courses are objectively better than others on a subjective scale. You don't even have to look closely to watch their arguments fall apart. In one sentence, it's "Don't put too much faith in the magazine ratings." In the next sentence it's "Just look at the magazine ratings, no one could possibly prefer Course N to Course Z!" It's all mundane and stupid. I love a good natured argument about why one hole or course is better than another. But when you have to start resorting to trying to undermine my whole platform of judgment, it just tells me that you're A) an asshole and B) fresh out of rational arguments of your own. And ultimately, you've lost sight of the inherent subjectivity of golf course evaluation.

Crystal Downs is a great golf course, but it's no damn 10.

[Josh Tarble]

So as just to prove something...I'm not sure what though:

Crystal Downs is a great golf course, but it's no damn 10.

Could not disagree with you more...I personally thought Crystal was so good.  I don't know that I'd change a single thing about it - even the green speeds and the fairway cut.  Like I've said many places now, if I play 10 courses better than Crystal, they are going to be damn good.

[Chris DeToro]

What I do know is that this thread is confirming a lot of my biases about GolfClubAtlas. Maybe it's fair to ask how many times a poster has played X course. But if a person has to play a course at least twice before their opinion counts, I would say that once they've played a course more than 15 times they're developing a whole different lack of proper perspective.

This point has been brought up several times and while I agree that it takes multiple plays to truly appreciate the nuances of a great course.  However, I think that if you play a course only once and it stands out that much that you continue to think about it, that, in a sense, makes it greater to a degree

[Jason Thurman]

So as just to prove something...I'm not sure what though:

Crystal Downs is a great golf course, but it's no damn 10.

Could not disagree with you more...I personally thought Crystal was so good.  I don't know that I'd change a single thing about it - even the green speeds and the fairway cut.  Like I've said many places now, if I play 10 courses better than Crystal, they are going to be damn good.

I suspect if we were going to continue this conversation, it would have to happen outside this thread. But here's what I know about that conversation:

We'd laugh a lot. I'd probably make a few ridiculous exaggerations and you'd probably point out that I might have bumped my rating up from 9 to 10 if I hadn't played like a 30 handicap. There'd probably be a drink or two involved. And I think we'd end up realizing that we're in total agreement about the golf course, and only in disagreement about the calibration of the stupid-ass scale. Trying to assign every golf course an objective 1-10 is the real problem. Then again, it does spark discussion and can be fun, as long as no one believes that their subjective rating is any more "correct" than anyone else's.

But what do we know? We're a couple young guys who still haven't notched our belt at least twice with every course on the Top 100 list. And we only played it once. The whole argument would be invalid. But still, I'd have an awesome time.

[Jud_T]

Jason,

You and I have a lot in common.  I think we both may come off as being a bit arrogant on here in print, but after meeting you, playing a couple of rounds together and sharing a beverage or 3, I found you to be a perfectly reasonable guy, and almost nice  .  Hopefully the same is said about me occasionally (Jeez, I was sure that guy was gonna be an ass*()&, but he's actually somewhat humorous in person).  Ah, the foibles of of the internet age....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()