If I pretended to have played the world's Top 100, could you tell that I hadn't?

[Peter Pallotta]

I think I have enough golf course architecture books and articles (from this site and elsewhere) to be able to cobble together several paragraphs worth of 'insights' and 'impressions' for every course on most top 100 lists.

In other words, amongst some audiences at least I think I could convincingly pretend to have played that world's Top 100 courses (especially if I also fostered a mysterious air surrounding my livelihood and sources of income). 

So imagine if years ago I had joined this site and started slowly but surely making it be known that I'd played all the great courses, and then over time, in post after post and year after year, I shared with you my thoughts and insights and likes/dislikes about The Old Course and Sandhills and Seminole and Garden City and Pine Valley etc.

Would you be able at some point to tell or at least suspect that I was lying, and that I hadn't actually set foot on/played any of those courses?

If so, what do you think would be the tell/giveaway?

[Bill_McBride]

If you didn't have a tan and a couple of skin cancers, we would know. 

[Eric Smith]

what do you think would be the tell/giveaway?

Frequent mizzpelling 

[jeffwarne]

what do you think would be the tell/giveaway?

Frequent mizzpelling

you beat me too it 

[Phil McDade]

Peter:


In the words of the great philosopher, whose name escapes me currently, I'd say: "It depends."


If I were in your shoes (and I think I see where you're going with this), I think I'd be able to "fake" my way around Augusta National, The Old Course (which, I've actually seen), maybe Pebble Beach, maybe Oakmont, probably Merion East, and a few others. Of course, those courses have in common one significant thing relevant to this discussion -- they've hosted multiple majors, and been on television.


Particularly with Augusta, I've seen and studied that course enough to think that if I were to play it, not much would surprise me there. Not that I'd play it well, just that it's probably the most "exposed" course out there.


But places like Pine Valley, NGLA, Sand Hills, Chicago GC, Cypress Point -- I have a "sense" of what those places are like, but I doubt I could fake my way through a discussion of them here.


And then there is this: the bed-post notching of playing all 100 of the top courses is quite different than having played a course multiple times. I could play NGLA once, and be able to have a decent discussion of the course, but my understanding of that course would pale next to someone like Pat Mucci.

[Rick Emerson]

I think the ways to figure out if a person is lying or not would be if their opinions were identical to common consensus, if there were no outliers, or if they just blatantly plagiarized what others wrote. The other way might be if someone like me who is interested in architecture but has yet to play many of the worlds best courses asked probing questions that could not be answered well.


However this post really makes me think about two other things.
1. Who would want to put in the time and effort to fake all that? Also, If a person has this little Character, it would have to come across in their posts and most people would just blacklist them and not wanna hear anything they had to say anyway.


2. Why does playing a top 100 list matter so much? I think of Bill Schultz. Bill has played the world top 100, but he really seems more interested in playing the best courses the world has to offer regardless of a ranking list. My goal is to live life to the fullest. Traveling the world while playing great golf courses that excite me is part of that. However, there is a lot more to life than golf too. There are some top 100 courses that I do not get the feeling I want to play and there are some courses that don't get near a top 100 list that I do want to play. There are also courses I would like to play that I may never get to and or never get on. As long as I do my best and live life to the fullest I am blessed either way.

[Sean_A]

Well Pietro, you would certainly fool me...basically because I don't have any reason to doubt you.  I recall when Macwood did his phony world ranking from whatever year and I was suspicious because of the African course and one other detail which I forget, but I didn't have any reason not to trust him so I took Macwood at his word. I certainly wouldn't bother doing research into a guy to substantiate his claims so I pretty much have to take them at their word until I am given a good reason not to.

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

I didn't understand the point of the thread.


I think that Rick's words sum up my thoughts perfectly.

[Sven Nilsen]

I'd be more interested in finding out who among us flies under the radar.  That being the guy with the great resume who doesn't care to or want to bother with letting the world know about his belt-notching. 


Don't bother looking in the Your Last Ten or Whip It Out threads, he probably avoids those like the plague.


Sven

[Peter Pallotta]

Just to be clear, there's nothing veiled here and no sly or intended criticism. Instead, and as Phil and Rick intuited, I'm thinking that maybe what we look for in golf course reviews/analysis and what strikes us as having the ring of authenticity and of personal experience reflects exactly where the rubber meets the road in regards to golf course architecture. What a fraud/liar like me, in this scenario, didn't comment on, didn't notice, didn't specify, and didn't experience during a (fake) round or two at Sand Hills might be the very things that give me away -- and thus might also be the very elements that characterize a true and deep engagement with a fine golf course. And conversely, what I did mention and praise and notice and explain (including the correct spellings) may be those elements of gca that could literally (and metaphorically) be "read in a book".

Peter
   

[Michael Blake]

I'd be more interested in finding out who among us flies under the radar.  That being the guy with the great resume who doesn't care to or want to bother with letting the world know about his belt-notching. 

First rule of playing the world's top 100 list is to talk about playing the world's top 100 list. 

[Doug Siebert]

I see absolutely no point to doing this but I think it would be pretty easy to fool everyone here that you've played all these courses.

When a course is discussed you go back to old threads (here or elsewhere) where it was discussed and choose a few things to mention. If you claim you played Pine Valley once 15 years ago, people aren't going to question it if you have a few vague thoughts and recollections but when pressed say "it was a long time ago, I don't really recall that slope on the 15th green you're asking me about".

If you wanted to talk from a highly knowledgeable position of discussing the minutiae of the architecture, of course not. But that would be true of someone who really truly had played all 100, since there's no way you can discuss at that level with a course you played only once, 15 years ago. Maybe some of them make a big impression on you and you remember them well, but all 100? No way.

[Jason Thurman]

You didn't start playing until you were 30, and you've averaged about two posts a day on this site over the last 10 years. That's the giveaway - you haven't had nearly enough time. Hell, I'd guess you've played fewer than 100 courses total.

[Tony_Muldoon]

You will need photo's.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60791.0.html

[Adam Lawrence]

One of the things I have learned over twenty odd years as a journalist is that, within reason, faking it is relatively easy and tbh at least in part necessary. My first editor, a former national Sunday newspaper business editor, taught me what I still think is the most important lesson for all reporters, which is (with a few exceptions) that you aren't being paid to express your own views, but to report those of people who really know the subject. So the key is to be able to find those people and get them to talk to you. To do this, you have to sound credible, so people will think you know roughly what you are talking about and are thus worth engaging with.


Therefore you have to be smart enough to pick up a small amount of knowledge on a lot of subjects very quickly, enough to be able to frame a few questions that are insightful enough to convince your interviewee that you know the subject.


It's only those who become true specialists who get to parrot their own thoughts. Or columnists, but they're mostly a waste of space anyway.

[Tom_Doak]

One of the things I have learned over twenty odd years as a journalist is that, within reason, faking it is relatively easy and tbh at least in part necessary.

Yes, some would be amazed at the number of articles written in golf magazines by people who had not actually visited the course they are writing about.  The magazines don't have big travel budgets [and they never did], so often they print articles about golf vacation destinations without actually having gone there themselves.


And yes, it's pretty easy to tell when you are reading one of those articles, if you are naturally suspicious.

[BCowan]

what do you think would be the tell/giveaway?

Frequent mizzpelling

you beat me too it 

I share those sediments too.   

[Thomas Dai]

Makes me think of the film 'Capricorn One', where the Mars landing is faked.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

I imagine that, over time, an astute observer would notice that I never seem to play any top 100 courses while it's raining, or even soon after it has rained. I never mention how the course plays when wet, or how well it drains.

[JESII]

Would you be able at some point to tell or at least suspect that I was lying, and that I hadn't actually set foot on/played any of those courses?

If so, what do you think would be the tell/giveaway?

Only after intense interrogation...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlD08Rh6xa8

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah Jim, now why would you go and mention THAT? And how could you KNOW?...


Besides never noting how a course plays when wet, the impostor would not ever critique a specific hole location/pin position - either in terms of putting to it from on the green or approaching it from the fairway


More to come, I think I'm (me, the poseur, not the impostor) is onto something

[Eric Smith]

Peter,


Play a redan and you're practically home free!

[Sam Andrews]

One of the things I have learned over twenty odd years as a journalist is that, within reason, faking it is relatively easy and tbh at least in part necessary.

Yes, some would be amazed at the number of articles written in golf magazines by people who had not actually visited the course they are writing about.  The magazines don't have big travel budgets [and they never did], so often they print articles about golf vacation destinations without actually having gone there themselves.


And yes, it's pretty easy to tell when you are reading one of those articles, if you are naturally suspicious.

Actually (after a similar period as a hack as Adam) all you have to do is look at all the ads accompanying the articles to tell if they are truthful accounts. Look at all those, "10 course to play in Chiantishire" features with courses you know are just complete dogs described as "championship layouts with PGA spec greens" and then spot the ad from the same course placed near to the editorial.

[Mike Hendren]

Do you think I have played Augusta National Golf Club?
 
Check yes or no:
 
Yes ___
No  ___
 
Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, you have Mike.


But, for your own sake, please don't confirm publicly. You don't need to be THAT popular around here...