[hp@hc]

Matt Ward,

You wrote:
"You need to check with what Paul Turner wrote. Do you actually believe Colt would have narrowed the fairways in a number of areas at Dunluce to the point at which they become bowling alleys? I'm not a historian on Colt but I don't believe so."

I did read what pturner had to say, and I responded to it by saying that Colt could never have imagined COR and springlike effect.  My point is, he may well have necked them in a little if he had known where technology would bring us.  Maybe you should read my post before "firing back" with an empty chamber!  The club has responded to the changes in the most appropriate way IMO, not by adding length as is the knee-jerk reaction, but by asking more of the better player in terms of accuracy off the tee.  I would love to bring Colt back today, and ask him to build a course in light of the technology available.  Don't you think the fairways, just MAYBE, would be a little narrower than those designed in the 1800's.  I mean, give me a break, with the whippy hickory shafts it was very difficult just to hit a shot that didn't have sidespin.  Nowadays the clubs are built for the toe hit!

Yes, I will admit that the rough can be thick at times, but isn't golf about accuracy as well as brute strength.  While I don't agree with the Open set up at Carnastie , remember that only some of the holes at Portrush demand that you thread the needle, not all the holes as you kind of elude to in your posts.  It is a mix  of accuracy, strength and creativity - what more could one ask for.  I guarantee if the fairways were wider it would become a bombers course - isn't that boring!

I'm not going to beat this to death with you - yes, the fairways can seem a "tad" narrow when the play firm, but I don't believe they cross the line into unfair.  Yes, the rough can make it difficult to find you ball every time, but then again, that's why the rules of golf allow for a lost ball.  Yes, the 1st cut of rough could be shorter - but it's not, so get over it.  Portrush is a leader, not a follower, and the members are proud of that.  Clubs around the world are trying to protect their assets against obsoletion, by speeding up greens, adding yardage, making par 5's into par 4's, planting trees at the dogleg ( a favorite of GCA regulars ).  Portrush simply took approriate steps to protect the course.

Many on this site know that if Portrush cropped their 1st cut and widened their fairways, you would have shot a 74, and said that the course was lacklustre and lacked "the wow factor".  Every course worth it's salt should have some teeth, and it sounds to me that Portrush bared it's teeth to you, and it won!

[Matt_Ward]

hp@hc:

You need to read what I post -- did you forget what the R&A did to Carnoustie? Is golf really suppose to be about an "either or" situation -- to wit -- either you're in the fairway or you're in the hay? I love Portrush -- you're the guy who defends a place -- anyplace (hint Hidden Creek, etc, etc) without ever really giving some validity to someone who's not a member but likely has a point to consider.

Hello -- did you read what I post or do you simply fire back with the same predictable comments regarding COR and other tech developments -- do you think I reside in a cave and have not figured as much? Does that then say having 15-20 yard fairways bordered with hay makes sense when you have such a dynamic layout to start with?

I never said the entire course is lined with hay -- I did say that certain key holes need a gentle "tweaking." Hello -- anybody home? Do you read or do you simply decide to broad brush what I write? I don't see how adding 5-10 yards on particular holes would change anything about Dunluce. You're throw-away line about the course being more receptive to bombers if such tiny changes were made is laughable. I don't see how having a course "Carnoustied" is beneficial.

You're last line about golf scores being the final barometer in my assessment of courses is also way off base. There's plenty of "wow" in Portrush in my mind. I'm just suggesting a gentle "tweak" that will only serve to add the lofty and well deserved reputation it has. Nothing more -- nothing less. Got it!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul:

Before we begin to have a love-fest with all the back slapping in agreement let me say that my strongest disagreements come with people who base their SOLE opinion on a course through either photos / aerials or third hand comments. I simply believe the only TRIED AND TRUE way to assess a course is to play it. I don't have patience or a desire to heear someone rave or bark about ANY COURSE when they don't put in the necessary fieldwork. End of story."

Matt Ward:

Not quite the end of story if you're talking about me. I'm not relying on photographs and aerials when it comes to Maidstone or the other courses I comment on. I've been playing that place for about 20 years now and have played it hundreds of times in every kind of condition and situation--the vast majority of it in tournaments. My golf for well over the last 20 years has been almost exclusively scratch tournament golf. I'm pretty much done now but then it was never less than about 35 tournaments a year all over the place.

That to me is the very best situation and context to really understand what a golf course is all about and what it's architecture is too. I think I know what I'm taking about Matt!

[hp@hc]

Matt,

Read what you post??  I certainly did, but you do not read my responses, evidently!!

You claim I forget about what the R&A did to Carnoustie, yet if you bother to read my last post you will see that I wrote, and I quote "While I don't agree with the Open set-up at Carnastie".  IS THAT NOT PLAIN ENOUGH ENGLISH FOR YOU?

And then you say I'm the guy that defends ANY PLACE.  Again, read my post, I said "Yes, I will admit that the rough can be thick at times" and "yes, the fairways can seem a "tad" narrow when the play firm".  Isn't this claiming VALIDITY in your remarks, or do you want me to bow down and kiss your #*!

I have a funny feeling Portrush doesn't need your approval to make it, and I'll use your quote, "to add the lofty and well deserved reputation it has".  

Again, for all to see, I am trying to place some VALIDITY to your statements that Portrush has thick rough, SOME tight tee shots, and a rough that creeps up on you much quicker than most.  HOWEVER, I firmly believe none of which cross the line into unfair, unreasonable or unjust.

GOT IT

[TEPaul]

Matt:

The thing about you and the way you seem to evaluate architecture is very much through your own game. That's fine, nothing wrong with that--it certainly is better than not playing a golf course. But maybe there needs to be a bit more to it if one is to be comprehensive in the way of evaluatoin. I think the problem some on here have with the way you evaluate a course and its architecture is it's just too much in the context of the way you may have played a course and sometimes the shots you hit that you report to us. And I suppose I'd have to say that you seem to play a course once and report on it very definitely but in the context of what you just did or didn't do on it.

I've heard that you hit it long but not very accurate. I can see something like that being a real problem at a course like RPR was. And I can see your evaluation of it being due to that.

You reported not long ago on the dell hole, I think it was, where you hit what you thought was a perfect 9 iron directly at a blind pin on the left and got caught up in the rough to the left of the left pin and consequently you sort of panned that hole.

Matt, in all honesty, evaluating architecture or a golf hole like that is total bullshit. I'm sorry to say that to you but that is the way I feel and apparently I ain't alone!  

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I'm only talking about you if the shoe fits. Does it?

Appreciate your credentials -- just realize there are those in GCA land who do assess based on what I previously posted. Nothing more -- nothing less.

hp@hc:

You paid quick and brief lip service to my main points. You simply repeated them like a parrot and moved quickly on. So be it. I expect something more from someone as learned as you. I guess my faith in you for being a bit more sophisticated in architecture is misguided. Pardon me for believing otherwise.

P.S. You don't seem to realize golf is a game based on rewarding fine play without the introduction of gimmicks. I believe when you have such a distinguished course as Portrush you don't need to introduce the concept of fairway and hay -- the "either or" concept I mentioned several times. A gentle "tweaking" of just a few yards on JUST A FEW holes would only serve to further that considerable reputation.

Look, I don't have the time / energy to continually repeat ad naseum the same thing over and over again. You see it
s-o-m-e way and I see it differently. End of story.

P.S. Plus: Please shoot forward another response outlining to me how I missed the advancement of technology and COR. You see I'm completely in the dark in such matters.

[hp@hc]

TEPaul . . . . . . . AMEN!

Matt:  If you read one of my original posts you will see my final thought was "Vanilla & Chocolate".

What, I can't have any ice cream, because big Bad Matt says so?

[Matt_Ward]

hp@hc:

You can't eat ice cream until you fall off the wall for all I care.

You remind me of the contrarians I used to debate with on my local school board -- if I said the world is round they would HAVE to say the world is something else. Guess what category you're in.

"Bad" Matt has no stake in any club -- I don't feel compelled to "defend" courses / clubs as some are wont to do on this site. I don't have an agenda -- I simply stated a gentle "tweaking" would only add to the considerable reputation of the club. Oh -- I'm sorry -- I forgot -- there's this contrarian impulse / requirement that exists within certain people. While you're eating your ice cream add a few nuts. Only for the taste I might add ...

[hp@hc]

Matt

I guess you don't understand the meaning of vanilla and chocolate - I'm trying to say that it's okay for us to differ in opinion - but you are like a bulldog with bad eye sight - you keep attacking me without seeing what I am typing!!

And by the way, to quote you again "Bad Matt has no stake in any club" - - -would this be because they don't want you !

Stop firing insults, and admit that it's okay for us to differ.  Stop fighting you big bully

[Matt_Ward]

hp@hc:

Excuse me -- check your own history -- you're the guy who threw bombs my way over Hidden Creek prior to reading my complete review. I know full well what's been said by you -- puhleeeeze don't come off with the "I'm so offended" retort.

I don't join a club for simple reasons -- I value my independence as a journalist and I still get the opportunity to sample a great many. I don't have to "pull punches" as some mosty likely will.

Look, I'll try to be a peacemaker -- we agree to disagree. It's time for the big bully to move in to greener pastures -- just "tweak the rough" at certain holes on Dunluce and the course would be even greater than it is today. End of story!

[TEPaul]

I don't recall really seeing any problem with RPR due to real narrow fairways. And I doubt they've narrowed any of them since I was there. I recall that RPR has a couple of holes that are naturally narrow in some fairway areas but pretty much due to the topography on those holes. Sure, those holes can get pretty intense due to a need to be accurate but when faced with that the idea is to maybe not take out that driver and just bomb away or at least try real hard to control the trajectory if the wind is up. I learned a lot about how to play that course having played it for about three straight days in a competition with a membership team. What I learned was some of the interesting ways they use the ground for approaching and recovering. Europeans seem to use the driver off of tees more than most Americans do but I recall when playing that course on those holes that were narrow and not too long just teeing off with a 1 iron because I've always been far more confident of hitting that straight than a driver. The other thing about Europeans is they don't seem as fixated on GIRs as Americans are. They just get the job done the best way they can and it's very effective.

I like width of fairway as much as the next guy but some of the holes of Dunluce just don't call for that architecturally and I can't see how some of them ever could have because of the limitations of topography on some holes. A number of holes at both Dunluce and Valley have some fairly close parallel topography but the difference between it and some of the man-made parallel mounding of American architects is at RPR its wholly natural and it looks it.

[Norbert P]

I have always personally believed that driving the ball is the consumate art in golf. Why? It is the first shot -- the defining shot. The shot that determines your available strategic options. The driver is also the most demanding and most difficult club to hit consistently. In my mind -- you show me a great driver of the ball and I'll promise you that person is a top shelf golfer.

 I've saved that quote into my GCA files.

Matt, let me preface what's coming with the fact that I always enjoy and appreciate your insightful and thorough golf course reports.  I think I speak for many there.

 It's not that I disagree with the idea that driving is tough but to place judgement on its higher importance is to place higher importance on the mechanics of golf and not the spirit of the game.

  What I mean is, I read that you've made a judgement on a  golfers specific ability to show how good of a whole golfer they are.  But, perhaps I've interwoven the definition of golfer and person too much.  

 

[Matt_Ward]

Slag:

My only point in commending the greatness of CD and Dunluce was to pinpoint the high demands of driving the ball when playing either of the two courses. I also believe a simple "tweaking" of fairway width at certain holes at Dunluce would not compromise the course by one iota -- I believe it would add to it.

I also stated that too many American courses (those at the elite end of things whether they be upscale public or private) are being designed with greens that overemphasize that part of the game.

I just wanted to highlight courses where the tee shot is of central importance -- the first (no pun intended) among equals so to speak.

I don't believe I've intended to add anything else beyond that. If so you need to clarify your previous post so that I can more fully understand what you're saying. Thanks!

[Mike Worth]

Matt Ward.

You have no idea how big of an ass you are making of yourself in your posts to HP@HC.  Those of us in the know are laughing our asses off at you (and not just members at HC) because your credentials are insignificant next to his.

And to set the record straight, HP@HC never attacked you over the rating at Hidden Creek.  I attacked you (and rightly so), all HP@HC tried to do was bring some decorum to the conversation.

But that's all right, continue you on in your vaccuum, it's very enjoyable.  

[TEPaul]

"My only point in commending the greatness of CD and Dunluce was to pinpoint the high demands of driving the ball when playing either of the two courses. I also believe a simple "tweaking" of fairway width at certain holes at Dunluce would not compromise the course by one iota -- I believe it would add to it."

Matt:

Here's an alternative idea the next time you go play CD and Dunluce that would DEFINITELY NOT compromise either course. When playing those few holes you mention that could use some 'tweaking' to just a few more yards of fairway--why don't you just try "tweaking" your tees shots into a few less yards for accuracy!! You may assume in your mind that a good course must allow any golfer to just blast away off tees on all holes but anyone knows depending on the lack of skill of many due to considerations of lack of accuracy that just blasting away with driver everywhere is basically bullshit. Has no one ever told you the importance of accuracy over distance? If things here and there are narrow and there's tough rough on the flanks the first order of business is generally to forget about hitting a driver 300yds and concentrate on getting the ball in the fairway with some club that most reliably does that.

[Matt_Ward]

SS1:

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.

Nothing like someone who belongs to a club being the slightest bit partial to his own club. I mean there's not a shread of a conflict of interest there.

You are right about one thing -- hp@hc did try to intercede but his leanings were once again towards those who belong to the same club. The breakdown of decorum started from your loud barkings about how people (i.e. me) could assess Hidden Creek differently -- you threw a child's fit because I declared (and still believe so) that HC is not a top 100 course in the USA as identified by Golf Magaine in their most recent ratings. You also then threw in other invective about somehow my listing of the 10th hole in a column in Jersey Golfer at HC as being some sort of half-hearted give away. Puhleeeeeze.

It shows very clearly to many people (a number of people have e-mailed me offline) how small some people can be because unless they get back "exactly" the feedback they hear from their own 19th hole grill they become upset that "others" who are less "credentialed" will have the audacity to say something a bit different. I don't doubt hp@hc is well traveled and I do agree with many of his posts because at least he attempts to discuss them in a civilized manner -- please don't make inane assumptions about my golf background since you don't know me in the least.

Life is too short to argue with fools because as my father said so many years ago it becomes difficult to understand which person is truly the fool.

Enjoy the holiday season --

matt  

 

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Please excuse me for not u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d-i-n-g the importance of accuracy in the post you just made. Thanks Tom -- you're absolutely right -- I simply forgot completely about that.

I appreciate you coming down from the clouds and educating the masses (i.e. me) on what it takes to play such courses.
You know I think it might be even a better idea if fairways were narrowed to no more than the width of a city street. That would help would it not?

[Mike Worth]

Jeez, if you're last post doesn't prove you're a blowhard, then I don't know what will.

Nothing in this thread or my post is about Hidden Creek, so you should stop right there.  

My response was about your absurd comments to hp@hc.  As I said before, you simply have no idea how ridiculous you look right now.  But that's ok, please, continue, it is very entertaining.  

Your golf background is insignificant compared to hp@hc.  Hope that helps.

Finallly, i'm sure I have an equal number of emails and commets returned to me thanking me for taking you on.  Appears I'm not the only one that thinks your a blowhard.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul:
Please excuse me for not u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d-i-n-g the importance of accuracy in the post you just made. Thanks Tom -- you're absolutely right -- I simply forgot completely about that."

Matt:

Please do not feel the need to excuse yourself about anything. And you're completely welcome---if I can ever help remind you of something of interest to you then that would be my great pleasure to do. As always, I only wish to be of help to you as you roam the world ranking golf courses and their architecture.

[DPL11]

Matt Ward said:
"It shows very clearly to many people (a number of people have e-mailed me offline) how small some people can be because unless they get back "exactly" the feedback they hear from their own 19th hole grill they become upset that "others" who are less "credentialed"  will have the audacity to say something a bit different."


Matt,

First of all, as I have stated in the past, all the "Top Whatever" lists should be burned, but I know they sell magazines and some people get off on them. I am one of the "small" people who contacted you offline. As I recall, your review didn't gather alot of support and I still think its way off base. If your opinion was supported by the people who rank golf courses, it guess HC wouldn't be in Golf Magazines Top 100. Tom Paul is exactly right about your reviews, "you seem to evaluate architecture very much through your own game".
I gave you my background, and you blew it off as not being worthy of disagreeing with your opinion. You did tell me how many years you have been a rater, like that means anything about evaluating golf courses. I don't know if you are aware of this, but many of the classic architects you talk about on here, were in fact green keepers well before their employment as architects. Working with the land is definately the best background one could have for measuring and evaluating architecture. It isn't manditory, but it is certainly a bonus.
I know that the opinion of a green keeper could not possibly be as lofty as an editor of a local golf publication, and I have come to the conclusion that I take your reviews for what they are worth.

DPL11

[Matt_Ward]

DPL11:

A couple of corrections -- I don't evaluate any course by my game -- those who know me -- you don't -- understand that.

Second, I didn't "blow you off" -- I responded as a professional and forwarded the review I wrote on Hidden Creek. If you don't like the review so be it -- but let's not forget the biggest barkers are a group of MEMBERS at HC -- LET'S NOT FORGET THE CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST -- it seems these folks only want to hear rave and glowing remarks about their golf course. NOTHING LIKE BEING IMPARTIAL -- right? When people have a "vested" interest in a club it's hard to believe they can be "disinterested" observers. Oh -- I forgot -- what do I know?

I also indicated in clear terms how competitive the golf scene is in Jersey and before a course can "assume" to be among the 100 greats in the USA it needs to clear a very high and competitive bar in the Garden State. But then again -- what do I know? SS1 barks from the cheap seats that he can't stand what I say (i.e. blowhard) but I do my homework and if he disagrees he can't engage in an argument about the elements of a review or other pertinent info on the Jersey golf scene -- he simply lowers the debate to one in insulting me. Very classy indeed.

Then SS1 further snipes about some "hidden agenda" being involved. How sad and utterly predictable. When the golf course review doesn't match up with all the fawning and hype then shoot the messenger.
 
DPL11: I think it's great you have the background that you do. I take your definition of what constitutes good / superior golf courses no less for what they are "worth" given the source from where they come. Let's also not forget I invited you to participate in future Jersey Golfer ratings and you said you were interested in such. I guess you "forgot" that part when you responded -- I guess I must have a "closed mind" to people who disagree with me. The invitation still holds though.

Enjoy the holidays gentlemen -- my only point on this thread dealt with the simple idea that a gentle "tweaking" of the fairways at certain holes at Dunluce / Royal Portrush would add to the inherent greatness of that layout.  

[Brian_Gracely]

Matt,

I didn't even think that your point had to do with tweaking the courses (RCD wasn't even mentioned as needing a "tweak").  I thought it was much more of a statement that you thought the two offer a supreme test of driving the golf ball.  Strange that nobody wanted to question or agree with that initial statement.

I've never read any of your Jersey Golfer ratings, so I won't jump into the pile-on about your motives, biases, misjudgments, flaws, etc...

[George Pazin]

I've been intrigued by the (slight) amount of discussion (amidst the mudslinging), so I decided to read the Portrush Dunluce review in my Strokesaver book on Classic Courses of GB&I. Interestingly, the writer says there is very little rough on the course - it's primarily fairways & dunes.

Maybe Matt caught it during unusual conditions. Any regular golfers of RPR care to speculate?

I have to admit, it's not surprising that we're picking on Matt for his stance on driving, but it is kind of funny that he's defending greater width & we're still picking on him!

[DPL11]

Matt,

The point that I was trying to convey to you had nothing to do with your "less than glowing" review on HC. I could care less what your opinion is on any course. It's your right, but that's not the point. It was based more on the process at which you came to your assessment. A half a day at a golf course that is not even open for play to its members is not a true test of you vs. the golf course. When mowing heights, a level of grow-in, and some sense of maturity have not been achieved yet, it shouldn't be written up. I don't have a conclusive opinion about any property until I can play it in different conditions, events, etc.. Looking at, or playing a golf course for "1" round couldn't possibly give anyone enough feedback to give a good, bad, or indifferent opinion. Sure, I've played some golf courses that certainly blow me away, but to give an absolute opinion after 1 round is ridiculous.

Some of our countries finest are still debated on this very site everyday. The posters on GCA wouldn't be going on and on about clubs such as NGLA, Friars Head, Pine Valley, etc., if all they had to do was play them once and make a final judgement.

It's not your opinion that bothers me, it's the process of how its been developed.

DPL11

[Bill Gayne]

George, thanks for efforting to get this thread back on track. I played Dunluce for three days in early august. The course is all dunes and fairways (except possibly 17 and 18 which really skirt the edge of the dunes). The dunes were covered in native grasses and shrubs. My only guess on what the stroke saver writer means to say is that the entire course plays through/around/over dunes. The fairways were tight and did require some excellent driving which I would expect from a course  of Dunluce's reputation. I found the rough to be equivalent of what you would find on other Irish links.

As an aside, the greatest lightning storm that I've ever seen was at Dunluce. From what I'm told lightning is quite rare in Ireland.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()