For the sake of clarity!

[Mark_Fine]

Just for the sake of clarity, I wanted to state for the record a few of my thoughts and views that apparently Tom Doak and Niall and others disagree with.  To each his own

- Hazards (both formal and informal) are the essence of the game of golf. Without them, the game would be extremely dull and boring and likely not exist. 


- There are great “tests of golf” that are not necessarily the greatest golf courses.  There is/can be a difference.


- The best golf courses need to be studied to be learned.  The greatest designs don’t share all their subtleties and nuances that make them so special the first or even second or third time around.


- Sometimes less is more when it comes to golf course design.  Holes can be over designed with too much going on.


- On a well designed golf course, width can create options and options create interest and interest is what makes golf holes great.


- It is easy to make any golf course hard, just narrow the fairways, grow up the rough and make the playing surfaces rock hard.  Just because a golf course is hard, doesn’t mean it is good.


- It IS possible to make a golf course enjoyable for the average golfer while at the same time challenging and thought provoking for the best players.


- One thing that makes golf special is the variety of the playing fields.  From wind swept links courses, to tree lined parkland landscapes, to mountain terrain to desert wastelands, to ,…., the list goes on.  The is no perfect landscape for golf, only an infinite variety of design options/pallets on which to be creative.


- By expanding old greens that have shrunk to their original dimensions, you don’t just make them bigger, you make them better.  Generally the best and most interesting/challenging hole locations are near the green edges which are closer to the surrounding hazards.  Expanding the greens restores those lost pin locations and creates added interest and temptation.  It also makes for a larger target for those golfers who are just trying to land anywhere on the green.  All golfers benefit. 


- Trees these days still get dissed too often (primarily because many were planted particularly on classic courses without the assistance of a golf architect), but they can and should be incorporated in the proper locations more often on many designs with the exception of true links courses. 

- Golf is hard.  If adding additional starting locations for holes makes the game more fun and enjoyable for more golfers, go for it.  Just add them smartly and carefully so they don’t clutter the landscape. 

- Call it/name it what you want, but short grass is and can be a great hazard. 

- Everything in moderation when it comes to golf course design.  Even the coolest feature can become uncool if it is over used. 

- Not all golf courses should be restored, but all deserve at least a good look at how they evolved before bringing in the bulldozers and ripping them up. 

- GCA is as much a science as it is an art. Opinions will always vary about what is good or bad or right or wrong.  It’s the “nature” of it

[Ally Mcintosh]

Why on earth do you think Tom and Niall might disagree with your above statements? I’m sure they might have issues / nuances with some of your points but generally your statements are eminently sensible and there is nothing controversial in there.

[Stewart Abramson]

Why on earth do you think Tom and Niall might disagree with your above statements? I’m sure they might have issues / nuances with some of your points but generally your statements are eminently sensible and there is nothing controversial in there.

+1  That was the thought that jumped out at me as I read Mark's list

[Charlie Goerges]

Maybe that was his point?

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
I made 15 points that covered many aspects of GCA that I have been pretty consistent about on this site.  Tom Doak apparently never agrees with anything I say and likes to tell others the same.  I thought for the record I would state how I view quite a few aspects of GCA as I get tired of the abuse. Let him and any others argue with all those statements I made.  Made I should make 15 more 

[Charlie Goerges]

I thought your point was that you don't differ as much as others may have thought.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Aesthetics is a subject best approached with humility. Our tastes always change as we grow and acquired tastes are often more satisfying than things that are immediately pleasant. At the same time, we can't ask someone unfamiliar with an acquired taste to appreciated it.

[Niall C]

Mark


I suppose I should be flattered that you have bracketed me with Tom D however I take a wee bit of exception to the inference in your second post that I somehow take my marching orders from Tom. It is certainly true that I don't often disagree with what he writes but then he does make a lot of very good points that he articulates very well.


There are however occasions where I might disagree or quibble over something he wrote and his post on green speeds on links was maybe one of them. While it might have had an element of truth in terms of the specifics of the Scottish Open, it didn't resonate with me as much as your post did which I thought was bang on the money. Given we tend to bump heads on things then I was happy to acknowledge that.


I am a bit perplexed though on the list of points in your OP. As a statement on your design ideals it is an interesting read and worthy of discussion but I don't recognise it as a list of topics that we've clashed on. When you boil down the list there is perhaps only one point we've repeatedly banged heads on and that is the question of multiple tees to reach designated landing areas. I can't recall if it originated in the Longleaf thread but I think that was certainly the thread where things got most heated. I'll admit to stoking the fire on that one but then the idea you "have" to have graduated tees so everyone can get to the same place really is a lot of tosh. It's as though the books from the golden age had never been written.


Niall

[Niall C]

Aesthetics is a subject best approached with humility. Our tastes always change as we grow and acquired tastes are often more satisfying than things that are immediately pleasant. At the same time, we can't ask someone unfamiliar with an acquired taste to appreciated it.

Matt


What on earth are you wittering on about ? A bit less of the "Kofi Annan" and bit more "frank discussion" if you don't mind 


Niall

[Matt Schoolfield]

What on earth are you wittering on about ? A bit less of the "Kofi Annan" and bit more "frank discussion" if you don't mind 

Sure:

- Hazards (both formal and informal) are the essence of the game of golf. Without them, the game would be extremely dull and boring and likely not exist. 

This is viewing the course from a very particular position. Someone still learning to control the ball would benefit greatly from a very friendly course, that isn't punishing in any way, even insofar as holes that kick back toward the fairway. Saying that golf is "for" the obsessives who dedicate their lives to it is... well... other people have shit to do, and would still like to knock the ball around on the weekends.

- There are great “tests of golf” that are not necessarily the greatest golf courses.  There is/can be a difference. 

Here we see "golf" as a sort of teleological construct. Any "test" of golf implies golf is measured by some hard and fast arbitrary structure. Typically "hit ball far and straight" is the platonic ideal of golf, but according to the rules "get the ball in the hole, on each hole, in as few strokes as possible" is the only actual goal, but even that is contradicted by the fact that it's recreation, which is meant to be fun. Because it's recreation, how we ultimately play is arbitrary, thus the concept of some ideal test of golf implies a lot of subjective baggage around "what is golf," which you're obviously entitled to, but I don't think is objective.

- The best golf courses need to be studied to be learned.  The greatest designs don’t share all their subtleties and nuances that make them so special the first or even second or third time around. 

This is a question of aesthetics. Saying certain courses are "the best" courses are like saying scotch is "the best" beverage... you really need to be really attune to the experience to appreciate them. I have my opinions, and in my 10 rounds between CPC and PB, I'm taking 3 of them down the road at Pacific Grove, because I just think it's fun architecture, good people, and a good time. A lot of people are going to disagree with me (most people will), but I'm entirely fine with that. I have long argued with my hit-it-long-and-straight friends about why I prefer dumpy old Gleneagles in SF to Harding Park. Some people need "proper course conditions" to have a good time and chase their handicap, and there's nothing wrong with that. I prefer to play match play and conditions aren't really important, because it's just as difficult for both parties.

- By expanding old greens that have shrunk to their original dimensions, you don’t just make them bigger, you make them better.  Generally the best and most interesting/challenging hole locations are near the green edges which are closer to the surrounding hazards.  Expanding the greens restores those lost pin locations and creates added interest and temptation.  It also makes for a larger target for those golfers who are just trying to land anywhere on the green.  All golfers benefit. 

I mean, I don't disagree with you here, I just don't think it's objective.

I generally agree with most of the rest of what you say, I just think it's trying to have it both ways. It's like you're saying at the end that things are subjective, after you've made quite a few bold proclamations of aesthetics as fact.

The concept of objective aesthetics is hard to square, but a lot of folks are insistent. It's why in my signature I talk about beer and wine culture. Here in northern California, the cliche is that wine lovers keep chasing some "best" wine or winery, while the beer drinkers are just so overwhelmed with the diversity of beer that the breweries often help each other out, rather than compete with each other. I'm just so overwhelmed by the number of amazing golf courses in my region that I could hardly be bothered to care about ranking them. I know which ones I'd recommend to some folks, and other courses to other folks. There isn't a best, at most, there's a "best for" every type of player.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm not sure that hazards are the essence of golf.

They are areas you are actively trying to avoid. They are areas that alter the conditions by rule under which you may play a stroke.

Most importantly, they are areas which by rule you may remove yourself from by not playing a stroke. Yes, you still spend a stroke but moving the golf ball with anything other than a club is as opposed to the essence of golf as you can be.

[Niall C]

Re hazards - I think I'd probably phrase it that they can, if properly designed or used appropriately, provide spice and interest to the game. They aren't however the only way of providing interest.


Niall

[Niall C]

- It IS possible to make a golf course enjoyable for the average golfer while at the same time challenging and thought provoking for the best players.

Yes it is possible but the question I have is why differentiate between average and best players ? Why not have the same design goals for all classes of players ?


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Some people need "proper course conditions" to have a good time and chase their handicap, and there's nothing wrong with that. I prefer to play match play and conditions aren't really important, because it's just as difficult for both parties.

Matt:


I liked a lot of things in your last long post, but I think this is probably the most important:  the match play mindset.


The day after I landed in Scotland in 1982, I went out in the evening to walk around The Old Course with the greenkeeper Walter Woods.  I kind of knew what to expect in terms of the conditioning, and I was struggling to ask my questions about it in the right way, so he wouldn't think I was an entitled American, but I wanted to know what golfers there thought about the mottled nature of the greens -- there wasn't a patch of pure fescue on the greens of The Old Course that was bigger than an 8 x 10 carpet, there was bent and fescue and poa all mottled together. 


Walter's answer made it clear that he wasn't worried about aesthetics at all; I later learned he was a 2-handicap and that maintenance to him was all about the playing surface.  Anyway, Walter said that he tried to get the areas around the championship hole locations more pure, by cutting out the poa and transplanting in good fescue from the margins, but if there was a patch of iffy grass in the green, "A good player will see that, and allow for it."


After about a month or two, I realized that simple quote explained everything Americans didn't understand about golf in Scotland.  There were so many obstacles that an American would label unfair, and the Scots approach was basically, shut up and deal with it, it's the same for everyone, and that had a lot to do with their maintenance budgets -- they couldn't afford to try to make everything perfect, and they thought it was a stupid quest anyway.  There were three tees per hole, but you were only allowed to play one of them on a given day:  if you couldn't reach the green "in regulation," maybe eventually you'd learn that par was invented to describe holes that were already in play, not as a basis to design around.  The only thing that mattered on any hole was whether you managed to make 4 or 5, and what your opponent made.  And if you thought you were too good for the daily setup and needed a different tee, you were probably either an American or just an a****** [most of whom were American].  The best players would just see that, and allow for it.


So, while Mark is writing down the rules of Conventional Wisdom -- which are generally true, and which Americans generally prefer -- it has been my mission since 1982-83 to try to show the world all of the exceptions to those rules, the spirit of the game as it was in Scotland back then [and mostly still is], as it could be applied to golf architecture.  That, after all, is why some very important people in golf wrote their letters in support of my trip, and why my university sent me over there.  I will take every opportunity to do it, although I'm not going to defy conventional wisdom all of the time -- I'm not stupid.  I only have to challenge people's assumptions just enough to make the point loud and clear.  The good thing about being old is that I really don't have to care if they like it, it's not going to affect my career at this point, but the people who have known me the longest would tell you I was like that at 25, too.

[Sean_A]

While I understand and largely agree with Tom's conditioning assertions, that might be a difficult pill to swallow after stumping up £300 to play TOC. With the influx of foreigners there is dramatically increased green fees and it is reasonable to have certain expectations. I will say TOC was in good nick a few weeks back, but not that much better than previous visits. The best thing done in my experience has been the removal of gorse. All that said, I would rather pay 1990 rates and play a bit more scruffy courses. This was part of the charm of British golf when I first started playing over here. It remains charming for the less ambitious clubs. My recent visit to S Wales demonstrated this quite admirably.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

While I understand and largely agree with Tom's conditioning assertions, that might be a difficult pill to swallow after stumping up £300 to play TOC. With the influx of foreigners there is dramatically increased green fees and it is reasonable to have certain expectations. I will say TOC was in good nick a few weeks back, but not that much better than previous visits. The best thing done in my experience th

has been the removal of gorse. All that said, I would rather pay 1990 rates and play a bit more scruffy courses. This was part of the charm of British golf when I first started playing over here. It remains charming for the less ambitious clubs. My recent visit to S Wales demonstrated this quite admirably.

Ciao

Demand drives price. Not conditions.


Price sets expectations of conditions, however.


Making the course scruffier is not going to influence demand. For the short term, at least.

[Thomas Dai]

Some people need "proper course conditions" to have a good time and chase their handicap, and there's nothing wrong with that. I prefer to play match play and conditions aren't really important, because it's just as difficult for both parties.

Matt:
I liked a lot of things in your last long post, but I think this is probably the most important:  the match play mindset.

The day after I landed in Scotland in 1982, I went out in the evening to walk around The Old Course with the greenkeeper Walter Woods.  I kind of knew what to expect in terms of the conditioning, and I was struggling to ask my questions about it in the right way, so he wouldn't think I was an entitled American, but I wanted to know what golfers there thought about the mottled nature of the greens -- there wasn't a patch of pure fescue on the greens of The Old Course that was bigger than an 8 x 10 carpet, there was bent and fescue and poa all mottled together. 

Walter's answer made it clear that he wasn't worried about aesthetics at all; I later learned he was a 2-handicap and that maintenance to him was all about the playing surface.  Anyway, Walter said that he tried to get the areas around the championship hole locations more pure, by cutting out the poa and transplanting in good fescue from the margins, but if there was a patch of iffy grass in the green, "A good player will see that, and allow for it."


After about a month or two, I realized that simple quote explained everything Americans didn't understand about golf in Scotland.  There were so many obstacles that an American would label unfair, and the Scots approach was basically, shut up and deal with it, it's the same for everyone, and that had a lot to do with their maintenance budgets -- they couldn't afford to try to make everything perfect, and they thought it was a stupid quest anyway.  There were three tees per hole, but you were only allowed to play one of them on a given day:  if you couldn't reach the green "in regulation," maybe eventually you'd learn that par was invented to describe holes that were already in play, not as a basis to design around.  The only thing that mattered on any hole was whether you managed to make 4 or 5, and what your opponent made.  And if you thought you were too good for the daily setup and needed a different tee, you were probably either an American or just an a****** [most of whom were American].  The best players would just see that, and allow for it.

So, while Mark is writing down the rules of Conventional Wisdom -- which are generally true, and which Americans generally prefer -- it has been my mission since 1982-83 to try to show the world all of the exceptions to those rules, the spirit of the game as it was in Scotland back then [and mostly still is], as it could be applied to golf architecture.  That, after all, is why some very important people in golf wrote their letters in support of my trip, and why my university sent me over there.  I will take every opportunity to do it, although I'm not going to defy conventional wisdom all of the time -- I'm not stupid.  I only have to challenge people's assumptions just enough to make the point loud and clear.  The good thing about being old is that I really don't have to care if they like it, it's not going to affect my career at this point, but the people who have known me the longest would tell you I was like that at 25, too.

Splendidly put!
atb

[Niall C]

While I understand and largely agree with Tom's conditioning assertions, that might be a difficult pill to swallow after stumping up £300 to play TOC. With the influx of foreigners there is dramatically increased green fees and it is reasonable to have certain expectations. I will say TOC was in good nick a few weeks back, but not that much better than previous visits. The best thing done in my experience th

has been the removal of gorse. All that said, I would rather pay 1990 rates and play a bit more scruffy courses. This was part of the charm of British golf when I first started playing over here. It remains charming for the less ambitious clubs. My recent visit to S Wales demonstrated this quite admirably.

Ciao

Sean


You might be right but I'm not sure you are. Surely most visitors have a good idea what to expect even if they haven't been before, and I presume would be hoping for firm and fast conditions over lush verdant green fairways ?


Niall

[Sean_A]

While I understand and largely agree with Tom's conditioning assertions, that might be a difficult pill to swallow after stumping up £300 to play TOC. With the influx of foreigners there is dramatically increased green fees and it is reasonable to have certain expectations. I will say TOC was in good nick a few weeks back, but not that much better than previous visits. The best thing done in my experience th

has been the removal of gorse. All that said, I would rather pay 1990 rates and play a bit more scruffy courses. This was part of the charm of British golf when I first started playing over here. It remains charming for the less ambitious clubs. My recent visit to S Wales demonstrated this quite admirably.

Ciao

Demand drives price. Not conditions.


Price sets expectations of conditions, however.


Making the course scruffier is not going to influence demand. For the short term, at least.

Of course not. That boat has sailed. I am saying as demand increased conditions improved, but not to the degree of the green fee. People are going to play TOC. However, the same is not true for all the best GB&I courses. I merely used TOC as an example of improved conditions. Golfers these days are more condition concious than my generation. We expected scruffiness because GB&I conditions were dictated by weather. These days, money can to a reasonable degree negate weather. Golfers know this and expect more. Jeepers, things like wide grass walking paths impress this new generation of can afford it to play big gun courses. They worry about speed of greens, condition of tees. I never worried about that stuff 30 years ago.


Ciao   

[Craig Sweet]

Clarity? After following this thread I see little clarity.


It's just golf!  Here's the land you'll play upon, now go out there and get around in as few 'hits of the ball" as possible. Jesus, people are so hung up on appearence hazards, etc...

[George Pazin]

The devil is in the details.


Most people agree on the broad goals, principles, etc. It's how you specifically approach things that matters.


That's why most polls these days, about literally anything, fail.

[Mark_Fine]

To reiterate, I simply posted a number of random views I have about GCA in no particular order.  It was not meant to create debate or argue my position (but thanks to those who made comments), it was just to set the record straight where I stand on various aspects of golf course design, etc.  Tom never seems to agree with anything I say and likes to suggest I am some low handicapper just worried about my own game.


For what they are worth, here are a dozen more thoughts (and not “Conventional Wisdom” rules as Tom has just called the first set) 


- The word hazard was not a defined term when golf was first originated.  There were only hazardous situations that golfers got into. However, it was those situations that made the game interesting.  Golfers didn’t seek out flat open fields on which to play their game.  How exciting would a Steeplechase be on an open flat football field?  Or imagine a miniature golf course with 18 holes that are each 20 foot long flat pieces of turf, one after the other! Hazards/obstacles are what creates the interest. 


- I never use the words fair or unfair to describe anything regarding golf course design. Yes there is poor and silly design but how can you call anything on a golf course fair or unfair when you can hit a shot like Rory did into 18 in this year’s Scottish Open and it counts the same as someone who makes a 6” putt.  Just like life, the game of golf can be eminently unfair. 


- Despite golf now being more of an aerial vs a ground game I like approaches that are integrated into the actual green surface/surrounds and allow if not even encourage a run up shot.  Too many times I come across courses where the approaches make little sense and are virtually useless. 


- Fairway bunkers should be in the fairway and/or at least connected to the fairway.  I call bunkers that are left languishing alone off to the side and surrounded by rough, “rough” bunkers.


- When it comes to grassing lines, I never like to see wide strips of rough grass in front of the entrances to most bunkers.  That rough grass actually lessens the hazard value of the bunker as it stops balls that would otherwise end up in the bunker. 


- I believe most great golf holes have at least one distinct feature (usually a hazard/obstacle of some kind) that makes them memorable and stand out. 


- Most bunkers on parkland courses already look artificial and when filled with bright white sand only look worse. 


- Many years ago I was heading to Phoenix in the fall to play some good golf courses.  As I was setting up my trip, I spoke with the Head Pro at Desert Forest and asked him if the course would be overseeding prior to my visit. He said, “Mr. Fine, we think brown grass plays just as well as green grass.  We don’t overseed our golf course.”  I immediately knew I would love the place and it turned out at the time to be my favorite desert design. 


- Another of my favorite quotes about golf course agronomy was back in 1998 when The Open was played at Royal Birkdale.  I met with a buddy of mine who was a member the year before the tournament to play the golf course.  I asked him during the round what they did to the course to get it ready for the championship.  He looked at me strange and said, “The throw up some stands, open up the back tees and tell the boys to have a go”!  I miss those old days.  Maintenance costs are out of control and too many courses are over maintained - sad.


- Understanding original design intent is an important aspect of restoration.  Some architects wrote about their designs and their philosophies making it easier to interpret while others did not.  Restoring an old golf course is different than restoring an old painting.  While both are pieces of art, one is static and only meant to be looked at while the other is a living evolving thing that is meant to be touched and played with. This is where design intent becomes important in restorations.


- While very few golfers will ever notice or recognize it, the routing of golf courses is one of if not the most important aspect of golf course architecture.  It is often taken for granted with more focus put on how each individual hole is designed and dressed out vs how the architect made them all work and fit together. 


- I consider myself mostly a purest when it comes to golf courses I like tending to favor the classics and those layouts that try to emulate that style of design.  However, there are architects out there that this site used to trash that have done some great work like Tom Fazio.  He is probably not the guy you want doing restoration work, but he has designed and built some amazing golf courses. 

[Kalen Braley]

Some people need "proper course conditions" to have a good time and chase their handicap, and there's nothing wrong with that. I prefer to play match play and conditions aren't really important, because it's just as difficult for both parties.

Matt:
I liked a lot of things in your last long post, but I think this is probably the most important:  the match play mindset.

The day after I landed in Scotland in 1982, I went out in the evening to walk around The Old Course with the greenkeeper Walter Woods.  I kind of knew what to expect in terms of the conditioning, and I was struggling to ask my questions about it in the right way, so he wouldn't think I was an entitled American, but I wanted to know what golfers there thought about the mottled nature of the greens -- there wasn't a patch of pure fescue on the greens of The Old Course that was bigger than an 8 x 10 carpet, there was bent and fescue and poa all mottled together. 

Walter's answer made it clear that he wasn't worried about aesthetics at all; I later learned he was a 2-handicap and that maintenance to him was all about the playing surface.  Anyway, Walter said that he tried to get the areas around the championship hole locations more pure, by cutting out the poa and transplanting in good fescue from the margins, but if there was a patch of iffy grass in the green, "A good player will see that, and allow for it."


After about a month or two, I realized that simple quote explained everything Americans didn't understand about golf in Scotland.  There were so many obstacles that an American would label unfair, and the Scots approach was basically, shut up and deal with it, it's the same for everyone, and that had a lot to do with their maintenance budgets -- they couldn't afford to try to make everything perfect, and they thought it was a stupid quest anyway.  There were three tees per hole, but you were only allowed to play one of them on a given day:  if you couldn't reach the green "in regulation," maybe eventually you'd learn that par was invented to describe holes that were already in play, not as a basis to design around.  The only thing that mattered on any hole was whether you managed to make 4 or 5, and what your opponent made.  And if you thought you were too good for the daily setup and needed a different tee, you were probably either an American or just an a****** [most of whom were American].  The best players would just see that, and allow for it.

So, while Mark is writing down the rules of Conventional Wisdom -- which are generally true, and which Americans generally prefer -- it has been my mission since 1982-83 to try to show the world all of the exceptions to those rules, the spirit of the game as it was in Scotland back then [and mostly still is], as it could be applied to golf architecture.  That, after all, is why some very important people in golf wrote their letters in support of my trip, and why my university sent me over there.  I will take every opportunity to do it, although I'm not going to defy conventional wisdom all of the time -- I'm not stupid.  I only have to challenge people's assumptions just enough to make the point loud and clear.  The good thing about being old is that I really don't have to care if they like it, it's not going to affect my career at this point, but the people who have known me the longest would tell you I was like that at 25, too.

Splendidly put!
atb

Thomas couldn't agree more, one of the best posts I've read on GCA in quite a while.

P.S. If there was one post I could beat into the brains of American golfers, it would be this!!

[Ben Sims]

Matt,


Please excuse the ass-shining, but many of your posts have made me glad that I re-engaged here. I’m growing so tired of the binary debates about golf. Maybe social media drives us that way. Anyway, thanks for being thoughtful and interesting.


My first experience in Scotland, besides an Irn Bru and sausage roll at House of Bruar, was to spend a little time with Tom and Clyde at Cabot Highlands. I can’t help myself, in those situations I seem to open my mouth and betray my own interest and intellect. But I tried to listen to them work with each other. The lesson was that none of this shit is binary. Conversely, being confident and resolved in your principles *is* important. Simple to say but hard to do.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


Well stated for both the point that there are no binary rules, but that having and being confident in one’s principles is important. At the end of the day, each of our views about the quality and/or enjoyment of a golf course is subjective. However, I do think that some courses are better than others based on my principles.


Aesthetics and conditioning are not particularly important to me when it comes to quality. Aesthetics are more of a factor when I am assessing enjoyment.


Mark’s second long post puts an emphasis on routing. For me, that is a top principle as is the quality of the green complexes.


I agree that Matt’s posts cause me and it seems like others to pause and think. One additional thing that would even further enhance the discussions on here is if more people stated their principles and gave specific instances.


For example, I have stated here that I think that as good as Pac Dunes is, it gets a major thumb on the scale from many because of its location on those magnificent bluffs. Ballyneal is Tom’s best course of the four that I have played. I think that it’s setting also harms SS Blue’s assessments. Three great courses so yes splitting hairs, but my “principles” guide me there.


More controversially, I have maintained that Golspie is the equal to Royal Dornoch in terms of enjoyment and not that far behind in terms of quality. Why? The Par 3s at Golspie are superb, there are great contours around and in the greens (true for several holes at RD), and the variety of holes is noteworthy. On the other hand, I thought that some of the holes at RD were a bit repetitive (5, 8, and 17) and that 15 through 18 was not a compelling routing or set of holes.


Many will violently disagree based on their own principles which is exactly what makes for lively and educational debate on here. I do not assert that in an objective sense my views are correct which is why I so much welcome hearing specifics from others.


Ira