Own up - the mistakes thread

[George Pazin]

I'm really struggling reading threads recently. I see posters who have well thought positions disagreeing with other posters with well thought out positions, over the WRONG things (imho). I think this is due to an innate human instinct, an inability to admit one's shortcomings.

So I will throw out the following:

- my own thoughts on architecture have changed immeasurably, since I started posting on here - and will likely continue to change;

- I was completely wrong in evaluating what I did 10 years ago - and will likely be wrong now, looking back 10 years from now;

- JohnK is very right, every time he calls me out for ripping him about non-gca issues - and though I have every right to rip him, that doesn't make my criticisms correct - nor does it make his defenses correct - that's for you to decide;

- Jack Nicklaus is still the best golfer ever, even though he is not nearly as good as Tiger at his best - this is a tough one for me, you know I've supported Tiger through thick and thin;

- PLEASE ARGUE ARCHITECTURE WITH TOM DOAK, STATS WITH BRENT HUTTO, PHYSICS WITH PAUL TURNER, etc - this is the big one, even though it's listed further down on here; if we can't argue with folks who "know more" than us, it renders much discussion obsolete (think long and hard about this one, folks - but also if you're on the upper end of this, think about your responsibilities...) I remember calling out an unknown Paul Turner, thinking my math background would support me in a technology thread; little did I know he was a physicist...

I'm sure I could come up with countless others. And I will try to, to add to this thread.

But come clean - owning your own mistakes helps you move on and learn. Own them. And learn from them.

And oh yeah, Oakmont is still better than Pebble... Own that one, Huck!

Or ignore this thread if you think it's the ravings of a mad man...

[Mark Pearce]

And do it all with humility.  Great post George, let's get the standard of debate here back where it should be.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not sure what I hate more, threads about feelings or links to Shakelford articles. I spend far to much energy tip toeing around subjects and posters opinions that have zero interest to me. I knew what this thread was about and where it is going and hate myself for both contributing and enabling others to do the same.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm not sure what I hate more, threads about feelings or links to Shakelford articles. I spend far to much energy tip toeing around subjects and posters opinions that have zero interest to me. I knew what this thread was about and where it is going and hate myself for both contributing and enabling others to do the same.

LOL, when have you ever tiptoed around anything?   

[Billsteele]

It's like how Godzilla tiptoes through Tokyo.

[Peter Pallotta]

JK - you're either a better man than you think you are, or a worse one than I'm ready to believe. I'm not sure which. Maybe it's both, or neither!

George - I've learned over and over again that the devil is in the details, and yet am literally unable to accept the fact that I don't know many details about gca, and instead continue to try bulldoze (important) practical specifics out of the way by spouting off (unimportant) theoretical generalities.  

Thank you. It's good for me to actually type that out in black and white!

[Bill Brightly]

George,

I'm all for owning up to mistakes. Lord knows I've made my share, and one of the things I have learned is that the faster you admit your mistake, the better it is for all involved. I mean, if you screw up and your boss/parent/daughter/wife or fellow gca poster calls you out on it, and you say "You right, I was wrong" what can the say? They might be ready to rip into you, but you take all the wind out of their sails with that line!

Mark,

I've been searching for the right way to say this for a log time, but I have no problem with the "standard of debate" on gca.com. Sure, there are a few really blunt and direct posters, but they generally know their stuff from a gca perspective. If they did not, they would be soundly thrashed.

Formal debate can be TOUGH. That does not make it bad. Just that it is serious.

I believe that if I throw out a poorly conceived (or poorly researched)  position on a hole or architect, I deserve to be corrected. If I'm truly wise, I'll either go back and research my position and respond, or I'll learn something from my mistake.

Here is a test example that will probably generate some green ink and get me relegated to moron status: I don't think that Sleepy Hollow and NGLA have great Redan holes. I think they are VERY cool golf holes, just not great Redans. Let's see what that generates and if I am prepared to respond.

[archie_struthers]

 


Wow , look up curmudgeon In the dictionary and __________ face is right there!

[Tom_Doak]

Here is a test example that will probably generate some green ink and get me relegated to moron status: I don't think that Sleepy Hollow and NGLA have great Redan holes. I think they are VERY cool golf holes, just not great Redans. Let's see what that generates and if I am prepared to respond.

I could see someone saying this about the Redan at Sleepy Hollow, but -- National?  Really?

I think that National's Redan might be the only one that is BETTER than the original.  I would love to hear why you disqualify it ... unless you are going to disqualify EVERY Redan that's not at North Berwick, in which case, what's the point of the discussion?

[Mark Saltzman]

Here is a test example that will probably generate some green ink and get me relegated to moron status: I don't think that Sleepy Hollow and NGLA have great Redan holes. I think they are VERY cool golf holes, just not great Redans. Let's see what that generates and if I am prepared to respond.

I could see someone saying this about the Redan at Sleepy Hollow, but -- National?  Really?

I think that National's Redan might be the only one that is BETTER than the original.  I would love to hear why you disqualify it ... unless you are going to disqualify EVERY Redan that's not at North Berwick, in which case, what's the point of the discussion?

Is the reason you don't like the redan at Sleepy Hollow because it's downhill?  Based on a sample size of one, I found that it still functioned remarkably well as the kicker is more severe than most redans, thus negating the softer landing of a downhill tee shot.

I've played a few redans that don't function particularly well (Mountain Lake, Lookout Mountain, Yale), but you picked two of the very best and most well functioning.

Ok, let's hear it, why don't they work?

[Gib_Papazian]

Barny,

For somebody who has the world absolutely by the ass, your self-loathing twaddle is just that. The difference between you and me is that you only pretend to be a little crackers . . . . .

Here are my biggest shortcomings: I have a very difficult time appreciating certain architectural styles that demand aerial approaches - and tend to dismiss them as too demanding, indulgent and arrogant. Maybe I ought to learn how to hit the fucking ball higher than 10 feet off the ground.

And because of my overdeveloped imagination, I also tend to draw a detailed picture of most regular posters in my mind. The reality is, they never look or act like I imagined once we meet. The worst part is that the guys I think pompous assholes (yeah, like I am one to judge) based on their posts are invariably interesting and likable people once we tee it up and have a beer or three.

I'm afraid to meet Wayne Morrison because if could actually stand his company, the cognitive dissonance might explode my cranium right there in the bar. On the other hand, there are exceptions to every rule . . . . . . .

Tom,

Before we make Bill pee in a cup over the Redan comment, he might be responding to the fact that #15 at N. Berwick is essentially a blind shot - which has an appeal all its own. On #4 at NGLA, the second the ball comes off the club, I know if the shot is going to feed left, kick right off that hump or go over the green into the back bunker. In many ways, I think NGLA has a far more difficult and exacting Redan than Berwick, where my normal hard-draw puts me on the green most of the time.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here is a test example that will probably generate some green ink and get me relegated to moron status:

Bill,

Talk about mistakes, this has to rank amongst the grandest of them all.

 "Moron" status does not begin to describe your sacreligeous remarks.
Colossal Moron status, heading to grand exalted Moron status is more like it.

I don't think that Sleepy Hollow and NGLA have great Redan holes.
I think they are VERY cool golf holes, just not great Redans.

While I would agree with you regarding Sleepy Hollow, you couldn't be more wrong about NGLA.
NGLA's Redan is simply brilliant.
About as natural a setting as you'll find for a golf hole.
A great hole with a prevailing personality in playing options that shift dramatically with the wind.

Let's see what that generates and if I am prepared to respond.

I think you have to look at Sleepy Hollow in a broader context than just the 7th hole.
I think you have to see how it relates to the prior six holes and how it bridges the terrain to get to the 8th tee.

As to the 4th at NGLA.
I'll do my best to see if they'll allow you on the property in the next five years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

Out of curioslty, what do you think of Piping Rock's Redan ?

[Gib_Papazian]

Patrick,

I was going to ask that very question, because Piping Rock's Redan is very unusual to me. It is semi-blind, not angled as much as many Redans and seems less embellished with twitchy little humps and bumps - but I have only seen it once.

 

[George Pazin]

I'm not sure what I hate more, threads about feelings or links to Shakelford articles. I spend far to much energy tip toeing around subjects and posters opinions that have zero interest to me. I knew what this thread was about and where it is going and hate myself for both contributing and enabling others to do the same.

You're right, John, I shouldn't have gone into the feelings angle.

Let's keep it to architecture. Have you concluded you were mistaken on any earlier thoughts or course evaluations?

My own personal change re: gca is from the very start, and likely leads to a mistake I'm making now (more on that later). One of the first books I read on architecture from Geoff's The Captain. I loved the hole diagrams. showing the various options for approaching a green; it seemed to me the ultimate in design.

Then Tom D pointed out something I probably should have thought of myself: those seeming myriad of options are usually in reality fairly clear and obvious choices for most levels of golfers, so the options tend to disappear for most golfers - they end up playing the same way most or all of the time. He said he wasn't a big fan of alternate fairways, for this reason.

Makes perfect sense, if you think about it. I just hadn't.

So here's the mistake I'm probably making now: those diagrams remind me a great deal of my limited exposure to Pete Dye's work (2 courses played, 1 toured). His work strikes me as a hop-scotch approach to the game of golf, whereas I've come to prefer the more continuous type of options (as opposed to discrete options). I view it as soccer or hockey versus hop scotch.

Now, I'm not a complete idiot. Enough people who know far more than I hold Pete Dye in the highest regard, and I know he's forgotten more about gca than I'll ever know. So where am I wrong in my current dislike of his courses?

I will say, I consider The Players to be consistently one of the most interesting, entertaining events in all of golf, right there with The Masters and The Open, so maybe it's just that his shading only becomes apparent if you are a certain level of golfer, which I am certainly not.

[John Kavanaugh]

I do not recall ever being mistaken about my opinion on architecture.  As a matter of record and fact I can state several occasions where time has proven me right.

[Andy Troeger]

George,

Pete Dye's courses certainly make the better player think their way around. His hazards are often very black and white and are often in very close proximity to his greens. I like that aspect personally, but others prefer grey. The finishing stretch at Sawgrass shows that the difference between safe and wet is minimal at times. He often provides a bail out area that provides safety at the cost of a tough recovery (think #16/18 at Sawgrass).

For good golfers or decent golfers playing well, I think these challenges are fun and interesting. For golfers below a certain skill level (not intending to judge your game--just generally commenting) I can see how it becomes too difficult and ceases to be enjoyable. I've had days where I've been off on a Pete Dye course--the numbers add up in a hurry.

As far as "mistakes" I would prefer to think of my tastes as "evolving." I find the study of golf courses to be almost entirely subjective--we all have our own biases, preferences, and tastes. I don't feel it appropriate to say anyone is "mistaken" or "wrong." Of course I do see that certain posters tend to agree with my own viewpoints and others don't. I could stand to pay more attention to those opposite viewpoints, because I would learn more from that than I do reading posts from people that I already agree with.

[Charlie Gallagher]

George and others,
    I strongly agree with a point that you made about the evolutionary effect of repeated visits to this wonderful web addresss. I've read somewhere around 25 books on golf course architecture and countless articles on the subject, but GCA has accelerated change in my perspective markedly. Like you, I have a far different appreciation for what makes good golf than I did 10 years ago, and I would say that GCA has had a large impact on my thinking. I get to see all manner of plans, photographs, and writings here, and I get to trade thoughts with others who know a great deal about the subject matter. Like you my appreciation is far better than it was, and I look at courses and the game very differently than I did even 5 or 6 years ago. Just a few changes of note:
-I used to think length was the primary factor in defending par, I care far less about that now, a well thought out short hole like the 5th at Boston Golf Club or the 4th at Gulph Mills will defend its par more than adequately.
-I used to think that the USGA had it right when it grew 5 inch rough to challenge players and defend par. What the hell was I thinking?
-I'm not sure I would have ever known who George Bahto was without GCA.
-I would never have known of the alternative Merion Hugh Wilson theories, and would have remained happily ignorant without GCA and its educated posters.
There is pomposity here that can be tiresome, but I have to say that I am intrugued  by the richness of opinion and would very much like to meet almost everyone I have encountered on the site. My evolution continues.

[Jason Topp]

I keep looking at this thread but am not quite sure of the topic.  Am I supposed to identify viewpoints I once held that I now believe are wrong?  Am I supposed to identify stupid posts I have made or stupid things I have done?  I have plenty of examples in all of these categories.

[Dan Kelly]

Am I supposed to identify stupid posts I have made or stupid things I have done?  I have plenty of examples in all of these categories.

Here's one of them (x2):



As for me: I try not to let my own mistakes be photographed! In that, I suspect that I finally have something in common with golf-course architects.

[Jason Topp]

Bring a dollar May 25.  We will be matching cards if we are not in the same group Dan

[George Pazin]

I keep looking at this thread but am not quite sure of the topic.  Am I supposed to identify viewpoints I once held that I now believe are wrong?  Am I supposed to identify stupid posts I have made or stupid things I have done?  I have plenty of examples in all of these categories.

Feel free to interpret the topic any way you'd like. I have a tendency (as others have noted) to get frustrated when silly disagreements erupt and try to smooth things over, reminding everyone why we're here. It's a shortcoming I attempt to address every new year with my annual resolution to be meaner... Alas, Iyam what Iyam, a sap to the end.

-----

Nice post, Andy. You can't offend me by questioning my skills, no one questions them more than I.

I do still think my earlier views on gca were mistakes, not simply less evolved thinking. That may be semantics, or it may not be; that's for others to judge, I guess.

The courses I didn't much care for that I'd like to revisit to see if I missed anything are few. The one that may stick out the most is World Woods Rolling Green; it just did little to endear itself to me. I did really enjoy WW-PB, so I don't think it's a bias thing, but it was so long ago it could just be an aesthetics thing.

One mistake I know another made was said person assigning Oakmont a 9. If Oakmont's a 9, I guess this one only goes to 9...

 

[Bill Brightly]

Sorry for the delay, I was busy playing in the Met Sr. Am where Mucci  SHOULD have been! (And confirmed my status as a senior by playing a wrong ball... My damn partner was 30-40 yards past me all day, except one )

Sleepy Hollow's Redan plays down a steep hill. A redan is a fort. A well placed fort is not at the bottom of a hill. It is still a VERY cool golf hole, but I like my Redans to play uphill.

Now here is where my potential mistake may have been committed... I have only played it once, but I seem to recall NGLA's playing slightly downhill. Am I wrong?

[Ronald Montesano]

It is downhill.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sorry for the delay, I was busy playing in the Met Sr. Am where Mucci  SHOULD have been! (And confirmed my status as a senior by playing a wrong ball... My damn partner was 30-40 yards past me all day, except one )

Sleepy Hollow's Redan plays down a steep hill. A redan is a fort. A well placed fort is not at the bottom of a hill. It is still a VERY cool golf hole, but I like my Redans to play uphill.

Now here is where my potential mistake may have been committed... I have only played it once, but I seem to recall NGLA's playing slightly downhill. Am I wrong?

Bill,

It's almost imperceptible at about a 1 to 1.5 degree grade.