[Brad Swanson]

Steve,
   If the typical courses in the Houston area feature 3 par 3s of 260, 275, 250 (shrunk down to Houston's elevation of course) as was the case at Paa ko, I'd better rethink my wife's and my faculty position interviews down there (and just when I was warming up to the idea of living in Houston , pun intended).  I enjoy difficult golf courses, but I don't like a regular diet of abuse like that.

Adam,
   Although I may bitch about a hole I think is unfair on the course (usually after making double or worse ), in principle I am with you in regards to the fact that everyone plays the same course, which in theory, makes an unfair argument tough to substantiate.  

In competition, once you let the idea of the golf course being unfair (usually meaning it is easier for some of your competitors than you), you might as well quit, because you are beat.  

Poor design is not equivalent to unfair.  Apples and oranges.

I don't mind having a hole or 2 where a particular shot is required for success (as long as length is not the sole determinant).  

Contrary to what most who have played with me here probably believe, I don't mind playing a course where I have to keep my driver in the bag on several par 4s (Riverdale Dunes, my home course, being a prime example).

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[DMoriarty]

Dave, a couple of closing points.  I haven't moved away from Matt's notions on unfair holes.  I've always felt that there is no such thing as an unfair hole, so it's not like I've shifted away from something.

So you've never agreed with Matt.  Fine by me.

As to this notion that I've buckled under on the notion that luck has never been a critical, important, crucial, gigantic (or whatever adjective you want to use) part of the game because I'm not denying reality (that the aerial game presents fewer opportunities for luck to rear its head than the ground game), well, that's not exactly true, either.  

Shivas, your lottery examples are way off in magnatude, and you know it.  No need to go so far as the Illinios Lottery to discuss golf architecture, when we have all these great courses.  Let me ask you the same thing I asked Matt:  

With regard to the Redan, do you agree that the degree of uncertainty in result is much greater than at most par 3's?  If you were to list all of the par 3's you have ever played from low degree of uncertainty of result to high degree of uncertainty of result where, generally, would the Redan fall?

Same question for these holes:


The punchbowl at NGLA.
The Alps at NGLA
NGLA Nos. 1,2,6, 7.
The Road Hole at St. Andrews.
Augusta 12.
Augusta 11 (approach).
Augusta 13.
Yale's Bairitz.
Riviera No. 10 (Agressive option)
The 3/4 blind oceanside par 3 at Maidstone.

Keep in mind, Shivas, that I am talking about uncertainty on a well struck shot, or at least one that the golfer thought was well struck the moment it is hit.

Seriously, how many memorable good or bad breaks have you gotten in the last few years, where your shot got something other than what it "deserved"?  Odds are that the number is a mere pittance compared to the number of shots you've hit that got what they deserved, and probably along the lines of the 2%/98% figures I'm guesstimating.  That's all I'm saying.

First, neither one of us believes in the concept of "just desert" when it comes to golf, remember.  So getting what I deserve is never an issue.  I get or dont get breaks on the majority of holes that I play.  You must be playing the wrong courses.  

[Michael Whitaker]

Lou - We will have to agree to disagree. I just think there are too many "skilled" players who think physical talent bestows some special creative knowledge or understanding that the "average" golfer can't fathom. Highly skilled performers do play a different game than the rest of us, but, except for tournament venues, courses are not generally designed and built for them.

Of today's most prolific designers most are not know for their playing skills. Obviously, former tour players like Nicklaus, Crenshaw, Weiskopf, et al use their personas as players to sell their product... and developers use that to their advantage. But, as we all know, these players are not usually the primary architect or designer on a project and some of them have been criticized at one time or another for building "formula" courses or courses that only fit their style of play... especially Nicklaus. Most of the names that are recognizable to the general golfing public like Fazio, Dye, RTJ, RTJ Jr, Rees Jones, etc. are not know for their skill as players. They are know as creative and/or design talents with around a third of GD's top 100 to their credit. Now, I'm not saying they can't play at all... just that they probably would rather try and make a living with their mental skills than their physical ones.

Finally, concerning the GD ratings... if I recently "trashed the product, process, panelists, and much everything else involved with it," I am sorry because that was not my intention. I think the magazine ratings serve a very useful purpose and I'm all for them. The only problem I really have with any of the ratings (and, I'll admit this is a personal bias) are panelists who are allowed by the magazine to use their "status" as a means to become semi-professional course raters, cold calling courses for playing privileges. It's just a philosophical thing. I think the magazines should better control and manage their information gathering systems. But, that is another topic for another day.

[DMoriarty]

I agree with Matt that the game should hinge in skill and not luck, so it's wrong to say that I've "never agreed with Matt".  I dont' recall Matt ever arguing that the aerial game is more fluke-prone than the ground game.  That's a fictional argument that you've added as a red herring in this discussion, but it's never been uttered by Matt.

I'm not going to answer 28 questions about 14 holes, but your interrogatories are outstanding!

Of course the Lottery is an exaggeration, but I can use whatever you want. I'd say that 98% of the time, if you hit a well struck, well thought out shot at the Redan, whether it's a high floating 7 iron or a hooking hot 4 iron, you're going to get the result the shot should get.  Of course, it takes a lot of SKILL to hit the shot you're trying to hit, but you've conveniently left that critical starting point out of your argument.

I wonder why?

Why, because we agree that skill is crucial, so why belabor the point.

How about you just answer the question regarding the Redan and the 12th at Augusta?

And shivas.  I obviously meant with Matt's position in this thread.

[Steve Lang]

 

Brad, no fears , though I know of a local 250ish one with a about 1/2 acre green..

remember it was altitude, then attitude

[Mike_Cirba]

Hey guys...

This thread is now on 11 pages.

Go back and read the GCA bylaws which clearly state that "Threads longer than 100 posts will not be tolerated unless the subject of discussion involves Rees Jones or Merion's bunkers.

So, let's knock it off...

[Matt_Ward]

Michael Whitaker:

You might be surprised to know that in many of my visits to any course I routinely play with a mixed bag of friends with varying handicaps and different playing styles. I watch quite closely how the hole / course reacts to the type of shots they play. I also ask them -- as well they ask me -- after a round is finished what was their take on the golf course. It makes for a fine discussion because we collectively learn from each other and I do take into consideration many times what has been said before making my own conclusions.

Brad S:

Just because we play the same hole doesn't then mean that it is "fair" because we all play it. If a particular hole is "unfair" because of a design situation or the ascension of luck / randomness as the dominant ingredient when playing it the notion that "everyone" played it doesn't then mean it's fair. It just means everyone is playing a hole that is not fair or poorly designed. The idea that it's democratic -- that
e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e plays it doesn't make the existing situation in itself a good one.

A couple of other points -- who said you have to play the MAX on all the par-3's at Paa-Ko? Let me also point out in terms of r-e-a-l length you are talking about holes where the elevation is easily 6,000+ feet plus two of the par-3's play from elevated tees -- the 7th and the 16th!

Brad you also said, "Poor design is not equivalent to unfair.  Apples and oranges. I don't mind having a hole or 2 where a particular shot is required for success (as long as length is not the sole determinant)."

Can you define "poor design" and "unfair?" I see nothing more than a semantic difference. Also, you mentioned you don't mind a particular shot on 1 or 2 holes -- except when distance is the key factor. Why the distinction? Is it because you don't hit the ball long? What about if I said the same thing and simply subtituted your mentioning of length with accuracy?  

Adam:

I stand corrected -- thanks for putting out the mistake. The par-4 7th is the long par-4 at Paa-Ko and then you follow that with a delicious long par-3 8th.

Dave M:

I'll be glad to compare the "shlock" courses I have played against the "lucky gotcha types" you relish. Happy to compare my listing any time.

Dave -- great holes provide clarity and that clarity tilts towards the skillful play (not just the player as you often bark about) which all players can aspire to provided they understand their own limitations when playing such a hole.

Dave -- I love your final comment to Shivas about "wrong courses" -- another crock in a long line of them from you. Please tell me what courses are "wrong courses?" Can you supply a specific listing of some of them?

Dave -- the 4th hole at NGLA is a great hole IMHO. It is great because it requires a skillful play by the player to fit the shot according to what has been designed. I never said luck / unluck is NEVER an element of consideration. It just CANNOT BE THE DOMINANT INGREDIENT.

I can also mention another superb par-3 at a neighboring course -- the 11th at Shinnecock. Here you have a hole with a tiny green that is exposed to the elements. It's not long -- likely no more than 155 yards. There are different ways to play the hole but fundamentally the hole doesn't bend towards those plays that have not been well executed. It is crystal clear type clarity that makes it such a supreme hole -- in fact, I believe an argument can be made that it rivals that of the 12th at ANGC -- if not even better.

Dave -- the 4th at NGLA has a high degree of certainty because if you play the appropriate shot -- that's the key part -- the hole will reward the player according to the level of execution many more times than not. I will say this again because sometimes your desire to twist things has no end -- there is no situation in golf where 100% certainty can be guaranteed -- nor should it be. You and I look at this from different perspectives. Holes that have the maximum amount of "uncertainty" are in my mind inane holes because simply the virtues of skill are trumpeted by other considerations that I believe are outside the fundmental scope of what golf should be.

[Michael Whitaker]

Matt - That is a great attitude. I guess that's why I enjoy most of your reviews so much! Please continue to keep the average player in mind... it is a virtue.

By the way... did you hear Lou Holtz had to go to the hospital? His blood pressure was 63 over 17!

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Do you totally reject the notion that the pursuit of fairness in design can lead to some boring results? (Not trying to be rude, just curious.)

[Brad Swanson]

Matt,
   Semantically, poor design to me includes a very boring hole with little challenge.  I should know these well, as these types of hole were all I experienced as a publinx youngster growing up in small town Iowa.  How would these holes be unfair?

   I had no problems with the length of the par 3s at Paa ko.  I just prefer a little more variety.  You ask if I am a short hitter because I don't think length should be the sole determinant of a hole that tests the player somewhat one-dimensionally.  I try not to boast about my skills (perhaps I don't have much to boast about or maybe I do).  Suffice it to say that I'm quite confident I have more than enough length to play any course from the tips (and I manage to hit it pretty straight).  Ask the people around here who have played with me if you want someone else's opinion.

   BTW, that delicious long par 4 8th at Paa ko was driver 8 iron for me (from the tips with a thinned drive that nicked the brush in front of the tee).  From the blues at Black Mesa on #7 I drove over the green and #14 I flew it about 20 feet right of the pin on the green.  Witnesses being Huckaby Morrissett, and Spann at Black Mesa, Duran and Whitaker at Paa ko.  Maybe you can use these examples as a measuring-stick for my ability to drive the ball since you know these courses well.  

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

   

[THuckaby2]

BTW, that delicious long par 4 8th at Paa ko was driver 8 iron for me (from the tips with a thinned drive that nicked the brush in front of the tee).  From the blues at Black Mesa on #7 I drove over the green and #14 I flew it about 20 feet right of the pin on the green.  Witnesses being Huckaby Morrissett, and Spann at Black Mesa, Duran and Whitaker at Paa ko.  Maybe you can use these examples as a measuring-stick for my ability to drive the ball since you know these courses well.  

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

Concur and testify and witness.  My a.m. partner at Black Mesa can hit the ball a mighty long way and mighty straight also, and this while hardly getting to play at all given his very real and very admirable life realities.

The same goes for my former King's Putter partner shivas also, btw.  The part about hitting it very long and generally in the right direction, anyway.  

I am a plus-three handicap at picking partners.  

TH

[George Pazin]

It should be noted that Brad uses those cheater irons - you know, the ones with miniscule heads that look like butter knives? The ones that all the pros use. Those have to be longer and staighter than my irons, judging by our results.

[Lou_Duran]

MW,

Perhaps our definitions of the average golfer are really different.  If you are a proxy for the "average" player, I will partially concede the point.  But you are not unless you are now shooting in the 90s.

BTW, Pete Dye, RTJ, and Rees Jones are/were excellent players.  I don't know how well Bob II plays, perhaps Tiger can chime in on that, or whether Fazio was ever a stick.  And you know that Baxter can play.  All of these guys can/could  definitely loft a shot to a redan, or knock down a little hook around the sand.

In regards to the ratings, I sure don't understand why it bothers you so much that some guys are extended some comparatively minor privilidges for doing something that the market apparently values.  To the best of my knowledge, you are not the recipient of the cold calls, and, hopefully, you have not been subjected to boorish behavior by any panelist.  I suspect that you have been the recipient of similar courtesies through your business interests in sports and your wife's high level involvement in music.  Perhaps you turned down tickets to football games, concerts, and plays.  Regardless, it is nice to be able to pick up a deeply flawed GD or GW list and use it as a resource to substantiate your point.

I will take Mike Cirba's admonishment and call for a cessation of hostilities, though he apparently failed to notice that Rees Jones was mentioned prior to his post.

BTW, Brad Swanson is long, very, very long, though he plays with a driver of dubious legality.  Of course, he could hit a persimmon driver with an aluminum shaft and still fly it past my longest drive.  But as long as Brad is, there is someone on this thread who may be a tad longer.    

[Matt_Ward]

Brad:

The reason why I asked is that I don't agree that "poor design" and "unfair holes" are really "apples and oranges" as you originally claimed. They are so close as to be almost similar IMHO. When a hole is poorly designed the likelihood increases that it will be tremendously difficult, if not impossible, to play the hole in any consistent manner. It is so lopsided in its outcomes that it simply becomes next to impossible for anything but the occasional "luck" shot to succeed.

Given the elevation and "blue tees" you played at BM I
salute your distance achievements. I only hit the ball a decent ways off the tee and would likely learn much in watching your herculean feats.

Speaking of distance -- As a delightful Scot once said to my friends when we asked if the tees we were playing were the maximum -- his answer? "Lad, we can open the gate for you if you'd like!"

As an aside -- since you live or are at least familiar with Iowa I hear nothing but good reports about Harvester -- I will be venturing through that part of the country sometime in mid-summer. Would appreciate your take on Harvester and any other Iowa courses (I have played Amana). Thanks ...

[DMoriarty]

OK, fine.  I'd say it's got a higher degree of certainty than most par 3's I play.  Why?  Because my kick notwithstanding, I know that the maintenance meld will funnel the ball to the green.  Try to hit a low hooking runner into most other par 3's and it's a crapshoot as to whether the ball releases after the first bounce and which way it's going to go.  

Shivas, you twist like a hung man in a chinook.  A "low hook runner" is seldom if ever the play on most other par 3's, so this whole paragraph is a crock.   Imagine your low hook runner at the 17th at Sawgrass, if you want consistent results!

Ok, assuming a constant rock hard maintenance meld across all great par 3's I've ever played, I'd say it has a higher than average degree of uncertainty because of the slope away.  Assuming a constant soft maintenance meld, I'd say it has less uncertainty than most great par 3's because the green slopes in one direction and most great par 3's have multi-directional slopes in them.

But you and I both know that the hole is not meant to be maintained soft.  So if it plays as intended, and as the current super. team is sure to have it playing whenever possible, it has a relatively high degree of uncertainty.  

It is precisely this uncertainty, combined with the options, which make this hole so wonderful.

The rest of your response, although an attempt to avoid a straight answer, is quite telling.  To create consistency, you have to mess with the maintenance meld and eliminate the strategy (you cant run it in if too soft), and you end up an inferior golfing experience.  I would even go further:

By changing the hole to make it more consistent, you ruin a wonderful golf hole.

Thanks Shivas, I couldn't come up with a better metaphor to demonstrate what is wrong with Matt's position on my own.  

(I'm only speaking of great par 3's because there is no point comparing it to the 2nd at Jans National,for example; apples should be compared to apples and feces should be compared to feces).

Assuming consistent maintenance, almost all crummy par 3s are more consistent than the Redan.  

I haven't entered into a discussion of #12 at ANGC, so for that reason and because I haven't played it, I shouldn't and can't answer the question.

Is this a joke?  Did you morph into Patrick?  Arent you the guy who told us all how 13 at Augusta played?  Even arguing with those who had played it?   Try again.

Dave, if you agree that skill is crucial, and if you agree that skill should be crucial, what exactly is your point?

Uncertainty of result always has been integral to great architecture and it always should be.  Minimizing quirk an uncertainty is a serious mistake and threatens to turn golf into bowling.  

[Brad Swanson]

Matt,
   I can assure you the "blue tees" were the blue tees, and the tips were the tips at Paa ko.  Don't worry though, I've been told by people that have played with both of us that I'm just a short-knock compared to you.
   Unfortunately, I have not been able to sample the Harvester as I don't make it back to Iowa much anymore.  Although it is the course for the Iowa State golf team now, when I played for ISU in the late 80s, our course was George M. Veenker Memorial (now only a shadow of the original Perry Maxwell design, although it is still a special place for me).  My dad mentioned some maintenance problems with the greens at the Harvester, but they may be under control now.  I like what I've seen of Keith Foster's work here in Colorado.  
   I'd recommend making an effort to get on Wakonda CC in Des Moines, which was one of Mike N.'s guest AOTD a while back.  Its an old Langford design in need of a chainsaw, but it is a fun museum piece (although I haven't played it in about 15 years).  Jeff Brauer's new course in Norwalk (which is also near Des Moines) was in one of the golf rags recent rankings as top 10 new affordable.  I did play Bos Landen in Pella with Doug Siebert (one of the few recent efforts by Dick Phelps outside of Colorado) last year.  Unfortunately, I found it as disappointing as I find much of his work here in Colorado (Rick must have gotten his architecture genes from him mom )  A good piece of property with alot of relief, with the # of bad holes outnumbering the # of good holes.  Des Moines Golf and Country Club is decent early Pete Dye (36 holes) and might be worth a trip (a composite course hosted the U.S. Sr. Open a few years ago and it held-up well).  All of these courses are in or near Des Moines and if motivated you could do Harvester and one of the courses at DMG&CC one day (about an hour to 1.5 hour drive time from the Harvester IMHO) and maybe Wakonda and the new course in Norwalk the next.  
   Iowa needs more good public golf.  Compared to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and now Nebraska, (and Illinios?) its pretty weak.

Lou,

...though he plays with a driver of dubious legality

"dubious legality"!!!  Where's the smiley face?


Cheers,
Brad Swanson  

[Michael Whitaker]

Lou - Please don't hammer me on this ratings thing. I'm a big fan of the ratings, think they serve a very useful purpose, and do not find them particularly flawed. Also, I'm not at all bothered by the raters playing for free when their host offers it to them. I just think the magazines should assume a greater degree of responsibility and control over their system. I've admitted it is a personal peeve. Let me have at least one.  

[Jim Thompson]

There's nothing fair about finding your ball in a divot...
There's nothing fair about having to putt through the line where some slob who drug his feet...
There's nothing fair about the ball that kicks of the rake and into the bunker...
And if you’re my opponent there's nothing fair about your ball hitting the rake in the bunker and kicking out…
There's nothing fair about playing against some cash cow with the modernist everything in his bag…
There’s nothing fair about a false front bordering a bunker…

But that is golf.

Golf – a game played in nature among obstacles.

If anyone thinks an obstacle isn’t fair, don’t hit it there.  And if you did hit it there, then take what the good Lord give ya’ and deal with it, you’re a golfer, not some self pitying simpering imp that thinks the architect owes you something.  Do we need to get the MacDonald quote about the troop of cavalry horse going through the bunkers out again?  Great golf should reveal an individual's character not subsidize it!

By the way, I don’t care much for overly penal design; however, I would never say it wasn’t fair.

Cheers!

JT

[DMoriarty]

Matt, so after all this you still refuse to discuss with any specificity the degree of uncertainty you find acceptable and visa versa?  Easier to just continue to defend yourself against an allegation I never made, and accuse me of a position I never held?  My mistake, I thought this was a discussion forum.    

Dave -- great holes provide clarity . . .

This is where you are wrong.   On at least two counts.  

First, great golf holes rarely if ever provide the golfer with clarity as to what specific shot the golfer should attempt to hit.  

Second, great golf holes rarely if ever provide the golfer with clarity as to the result the golfer will achieve even when the golfer strikes the ball as planned.  

Skilled, thinking golfers will be able to negotiate these two uncertainties much more successfully than lesser golfers, but the best the skilled golfers can hope for is to have a better understanding of each choice's possible and probable outcomes, and to act accordingly.  

Dave M:

I'll be glad to compare the "shlock" courses I have played against the "lucky gotcha types" you relish. Happy to compare my listing any time.

Matt, I know you are very proud of your gigantic listing, and I dont blame you.  I am sure that ladies and gentlemen alike are awed by its measure . . . it must be two or three times longer than most of the listings on this site, and apparently still growing . . . when it comes to the size of your listing, it's no wonder you gush so often and with so little coaxing!  But dare I say that this truly is one situation where the size of one's listing really doesnt matter . . .

You dont happen to drive a sports car do you?  

[Lou_Duran]

Michael,

You may have as many as you would like.  As I recall, you are into this diversity thing, which I too agree with.  Not that I have been to all that many of the gatherings, but I've found that there is quite a cross-section of opinions, interests, backgrounds, ages, etc. among the group.  Variety is truly the spice of life.

Brad,

Of course everyone knows that I was kidding.  Do you think that Dr. Childs would have the same club in his bag if it had not received the official blessings of the boys in blue?  If I start playing again, I'll probably get one so you can only outdrive me by 40 or 50 yards.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave M:

To paraphrase Reagan when he turned to Carter -- "there you go again."

Dave, I have discussed it. The issue? You either don't read it completely or simply just bark on and on.

Great holes / courses have clarity because they reward / penalize according to the level of execution made by the player. It's up to the PLAYER to determine what shot will best meet the type of hole being played. Clearly, the more skilled player may take a differen tact than the lesser player but there will be outlets for both to succeed if executed correctly.

The hole then provides clarity in terms of the consistent manner by which it rewards / penalizes -- based on the execution level made by the player. Do you get it?

Dave -- you are HUNG UP BIG TIME on this nebulous phrase of inconsistency / randomness. I have said it toooooo many times but there must be a thin but very thick layer of concrete between your ears and brain. I concur no course / hole has 100% consistency -- nor should it. Please re-read the last sentence at your leisure. But if any hole / course is close to 100% INCONSISTENCY you can have it. IF THE RANDOMESS IS THE DOMINANT ASPECT then the aspect of reward / penalty is simply turned on its head. In my mind, reward and penalty are central to architecture and the "fun" aspect that golf provides. From what I can understand of your continuous barkings you see it differently.

My question is simple? What's the point then -- it's nothing less than the lottery example that Shivas highlighted previously. The old poke and hope scheme of shotmaking / golf. Wow -- I just can't wait to play those "edge of your seat" type courses.

Dave -- I asked you for a listing of "wrong courses." Where's the beef partner? You ask for plenty -- but you aren't going to weasel away are you now? You mentioned to Shivas about playing "wrong courses" -- please list some of your "wrong courses" -- I'd like to be informed -- maybe I can miss them next time I'm on the left coast.

One last thing -- the more experiences one has the greater the opportunity / likelihood to learn from them. Nothing
more -- nothing less! That's why I enjoy such books as "Confidential Guide" because it provides some barometer from a knowledgeable source on the different courses located throughout the globe. If you prefer to stay in your "neck of the wood" so be it -- just don't bark about the totality of what others have done (e.g. me) until you have seen what they have seen.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas

To be honest Shivas I dont recall who brought up Augusta 13, but whoever it was you certainly opined . .  and opined . . . and opined.  My reference to 12 was to the swirling winds.  And you know exactly what I am getting at, as you acknowledge that the players are not getting what they want, "except for the gust of wind."  

As near as I can tell from t.v. and reading, it is in large part the swirling wind that gives ANG 12 its great character.  Yet another hole where the golfer is uncertain both before and after he hits . . .

"Intregral implies important at the expense of other factors . . . ."  You've got to be kidding me.  After all this all you have left is to just distort the meaning of the word integral?  You know exactly how I have been using the word throughout.  Remember the discussion about uncertainty and luck not having a zero sum relationship with skill?   Remember the stuff about skill being every important?  

As for your BMW, in a sporting sense your old BMW is more fun to drive and more challenging as well.  Much more dependent on skill.  None of that is subjective, either.  But driving cars on the street is not a sport, and other factors besides sporting fun and challenge come into play when determining quality.  Fortunately, great golf architecture is not as beholden to these other factors.  

No I dont accept that it is all subjective, not in any meaningful sense.

Matt

I watched a little Pro Tournament Poker on television last night.  It, by the way, is a game where skill almost always prevails but the outcome of almost every hand is determined in large degree by luck.  There was this one guy who went the entire six person game without ever having to show his cards.   Either he folded or everyone else did.   It was quite incredible.  Of course, once it was down to two players, he finally had to show his cards, and was taken out on that hand.  He had had nothing but junk all day.  Amazing in poker, not so in conversation.

You've gone this entire thread, since the first post, without ever saying anything.  You've offered nothing new, you've not explored one avenue beyond your initial position.  You just repeat the same thing over and over.  I guess where you draw the line in you "matter of degee" spectrum will always remain a mystery.  Thanks for a totally useless and unenlightening conversation.  

As for the wrong courses, they incorporate clarity in the choices presented to the golfer and the results the golfer will achieve.  As I said in the beginning, my definitions are the opposite of yours.

NGLA, PD, SF, CP, FH, Maidstone, RC, Riviera, and Augusta and TOC (the latter two from my side of the t.v. and books) are not among the wrong courses, by the above definition.  As for what is among them, who cares?  I'll take these courses and one's similar and you can have the rest.    

Congratulations again on your listing.  But you comparing yourself to Confidential Guide is laughable.  There is a difference between seeing and learning.  

[Matt_Ward]

Dave M:

Take a hint -- people r-e-p-e-a-t things because people like you either don't listen very well or better yet pull a fast one and sneak in terms to take the discussion into another direction. Forgive me -- I'm sorry -- you don't do that sort of thing.

Take for example my mentioning of the book "Confidential Guide." I never once said anything about comparing myself to the book -- YOU DID. All I said is that I enjoy reading books from knowledgeable sources. NOTHING LIKE TWISITING THINGS HUH DAVE! Sent in an application to work with the White House. Nothing like taking a very straightforward comment and then throwing it back to the person making it WITH YOUR OWN SPIN ATTACHED.

You run like a jack rabbit when I ask you about "wrong courses." What's the matter you have amnesia and can't list a few of them. Oh no -- David doesn't do that -- he simply waits for others to say something and then comes out of his hole and barks about this and that. Classy.

Dave -- regarding seeing and learning -- the difference is you don't see beyond your little universe of courses that you have ever played. You make a token visit to a few notable courses and waaaaalaaaaa -- ipso factor Dave M is the super knowledgable guy.

Dave -- the best part of any discussion with you is when you are cut with your pants down you then hop like a deer to another point without ever conceding anything. I have stated from the very beginning of this thread my definition -- I said great golf courses do provide clarity and that outside elements like luck / randomness are minor elements that should not dominate the purpose in playing a hole / course.

Dave -- I should have remembered something my late Dad said -- never argue with a fool -- you might just become one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()