Can Canyon Golf be great golf?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, No, this isn't "Pick-on Tom Huckaby Day" but, there is a point in all of this that is troubling me--part of it is that in an effort to not offend anybody, I think you tend to over-exagerate or accentuate the positive to the point it makes one question your sincerity. Please tell me if I'm wrong, because if I am, I'll swiftly apologize.

Weren't you the one that sent emails to both me and Geoff Shackelford claiming how much your family liked Rustic Canyon, and how playable it was for your dad who can't get around nearly as well as he used to? I seem to remember an account from a paticular hole where you go into detail describing how the whole family played the hole and how the scores, despite the different caliber of golfers was exactly the same and thet you all reveled some sort of positive tone for this, and that all of Rustic Canyon was "just the best course, well done my friend," etc.

And while you will stick-up for RC, saying you like it better and all of the usual stuff, are you really being true to yourself? That maybe you just don't know how to argue the fact that you in fact do like Moorpark better as a golf course, and that you don't want to be lambasted by many?

And if so, then who was it asking me to get him a tee time for all of the family just before Thanksgiving? Why not just get one over at Moorpark, where they would probably enjoy or relish the fact that a Golf Digest Panelist is coming back to see the course again??

Once again, Tom, I'm just asking you to be true to what you believe, and not to accentuate the positive if you really don't mean it. It is not an attack on your good-natured character.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Shivas, I couldn't agree more! I must have missed something!

[Thomas_Brown]

Is it me or does every thread regarding golf in this part of the So Cal. region reduce to the defense of RC?

I thought the intent of this thread was justified into a broad question on Canyon Golf's caliber.

I like RC better than Moorpark too, but it doesn't mean that every other course in So Cal is disregarded where we can't talk about broader themes.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Shivas, Who is your college roomate?

[DMoriarty]

Is it me or does every thread regarding golf in this part of the So Cal. region reduce to the defense of RC?

I thought the intent of this thread was justified into a broad question on Canyon Golf's caliber.

I like RC better than Moorpark too, but it doesn't mean that every other course in So Cal is disregarded where we can't talk about broader themes.

Tom B. I've been trying to discuss Moorpark, Sky, and the like.  I did mention that Cupp passed on RC, or so I've heard, but dont think I have defended it and see no need to here.  

My intention is to trash this type of course because I really find them abismal and bad for golf. And also to trash golf digest's syste of rating and ratings in general.  My thanks to my friend Tom H for playing along.

By the way, I really dont think Sherwood approaches the type of canyon course that Matt is discussing.  There are two types of canyon courses in So Cal, courses in canyons for the most part (Riveirra, Rustic, and much of Sherwood for example) and then courses stuck on the sides of canyon walls.  

Take the front nine of eagle glen and contrast it to the back fo ra good example of what I am talking about.  

[George Pazin]

When it comes to which BOOK is "better", you're never going to convince me that John McPhee's are necessarily better than Grisham's.  Enjoyment comes in many forms, and if someone enjoys a book, it is better for them, no matter what any "experts" say.

The key word in this statement is "for them". Most of the rest of us here are not necessarily interested in arguing or discussing what is best for others. We feel totally comfortable making value judgements with respect to the subject matter, understanding that it is indeed inherently subjective and that we are not necessarily making any sort of value judgement on the individual who has an opinion we disagree with.

If someone says it's better "to them", I don't have a problem with that. But they generally don't - they usually say simply that it's better. So I feel totally comfortable responding in kind.

It seems to go against your nature to criticise others for having opinions you disagree with. That's fine, there is nothing "wrong" with that, but that also doesn't make it "wrong" for the rest of us to criticise others' opinions that we disagree with. Ironically enough, you seem to be arguing that it's all up to the individual to decide what is right or wrong for himself, yet you feel that it's wrong for us to criticise others' decisions, preferences, tastes, etc.

Obviously, no one can tell you what is the best wine for you. In point of fact, I went to a taste testing party last year and determined that I can't tell the difference between "good" wine and "bad", cheap or expensive. Of course, I don't really like wine. But I'm also not on a ratings panel for wine, either, and I would never try to convince a wine afficianado that my opinion is more right than theirs.

I think that one of the goals for the site is to try to determine what makes great golf courses great, and, further, to learn from the discussion and hopefully have some sort of influence on either preserving great courses or creating new ones. By definition, this means that there is some sort of standard or set of criteria to determine greatness, and that there must some attempt at establishing some sort of value system independent of the individual making the judgement. Your friends and family, as well as the masses you speak for , seem to prefer to rate golf courses on a very different set of criteria from those of us on the site. That does not make any of us "right" or "wrong" with respect to our own preferences, but it can make someone "right" or "wrong" through some common method of valuation, which in my mind is the only way one can have thoughtful discussion that actually leads anywhere (i.e. I, for one, am not interested, at least to any great degree, to Rich Goodale's "all holes are strategic" type of discussion, other than occasionally when I've had too much to drink! ).

Got all that? That might have been my longest non-course describing post!

[DMoriarty]

Tom, no one can tell your family what is good or bad, but that doesnt mean we have to listen to them, does it?  

They play 10 rounds a year away from their par 3, probably half of those to humor you.  Should golf really give a crap what they think?  Are they they kind of customer golf should be catering to?  

I ask this not to attack your family, but because I think that, inexplicably, golf and ratings do cater to the one timers like your family.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

You hit the nail right on the head -- my post was on the places that OVERDOSE with holes climbing the sides of canyon walls -- not the ones situated WITHIN a canyon.

George P:

I truly believe Wolf Creek succeeds but I can easily envision "traditionalists" holding their nose at such man-made creations.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt, For what its worth, I also knew what you were talking about.

[THuckaby2]

Dave and Tommy: we can talk about this off-line if you care to.  I have really grown tired of being tried by each of you.  We've batted this around many times before, nothing's changed.  Now Dave doesn't like that I don't publicly rip Moorpark, so here we are.  Hey Dave - go rip Matt for awhile, will you?  He said damn near as much positive about it as I did....

But to set the record straight publicly:

Yes, Tommy - my family group greatly enjoyed Rustic Canyon.  I did tell you so at the time, exactly as you say.  That's why it surprised the hell out of me that each of them said they liked Moorpark MORE... as I said above already.  As for the rest, I am far truer to myself than you give me credit for - I just do tend to find positives where others might not, and prefer to look at those rather than rip negatives.  It's just a different way of looking at life, and golf.  Thus I am an awful critic - understood.  But I have never tried to be a critic.  I play golf because I love the game, I do this rating thing because they asked me to do so and because it's fun for me, given that it gives me more of an excuse to get out and see more courses.  That's it.  I do my ratings honestly and fairly, following the guidelines they give me.  I might say one is "favorable" or "positive", but numerically it might actually suck, relative to others I've done... my description is just coming from ME, the way I look at things, and if I give one category a good number, to me that's "positive"...

As for playing Rustic at Thanksgiving - good lord man, THINK FOR A MINUTE!  I wanted to go there so they could see it again and so they could get this "Moorpark is better" idea out of their heads!  I also personally wanted to play there way more than I did Moorpark or any other SoCal public course that we could have played, and on top of that, it would be a bit cheaper for us!  As is, we played Alhambra and enjoyed the hell out of it, again.

Why you feel the need to post this stuff publicly is interesting to me also.  Is everyone subjected to this kind of public scrutiny?  But hey, I can take it.  I yam what I yam.  

Why you guys can't understand all this has always been a mystery to me.  You attribute to me all these agendas, all these evil motives, all of this CRAP that I just plain don't have.  I just play the game and if I am guilty of anything, it's being too addicted to playing golf.  What an awful thing.

But oh well... different strokes.

David - whatever you meant, that was insulting to my family - my favorite group on this earth, the group I would play every freakin' round with if I could.  Yeah, they only play golf with me to humor me.  Read that again - do you have any idea how patronizing and insulting that is, not to mention just plain wrong?  In any case, I only use them as an example because I feel they are VERY representative of the "average golfer" - I know many others like them.  And just why shouldn't golf and ratings cater to people like this?  You tell me.  On second thought, don't.  This has gone on far enough.

I'm sick of defending myself, to be honest, especially since I never attacked either of you...

Yeah Dave, your "friend" here is quite happy to play along.  More patronization.  It's lucky you're such an affable guy in person and I know this... it's also fortunate I am as up-beat and cheery as I am...

But I remain so, despite all your efforts.  You shall not prevail.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

George:

Thank you  - that makes great sense to me.  I continue to learn a lot from your perspective and thoughts.  That is all great food for such, and all I can say in return is well-said.

But I guess that makes me wishy-washy and too eager to concur, huh?  

Acknowledging that one can learn... gee, what a novel concept.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

in an effort to not offend anybody, I think you tend to over-exagerate or accentuate the positive to the point it makes one question your sincerity. Please tell me if I'm wrong, because if I am, I'll swiftly apologize.

You are wrong.  I want the swift apology.  What I am is polite.  Ever hear of if you don't have anything good to say, keep quiet?  I tend to live by that.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So where's my apology?  

TH

[THuckaby2]

And if so, then who was it asking me to get him a tee time for all of the family just before Thanksgiving?

One more correction that is necessary, given my name is being trashed far more than I deserve, in this public place:

I did NOT, repeat NOT, ask you to get me a tee time for my family group for our post-thanksgiving round.  For this I want, no DEMAND, an apology.  I asked you what their policies were for tee-times, ie when I should call, how far in advance, what time, because I couldn't find this on-line.  Given that the only other person I know who might know this (David M.) is pretty hard to track down, I asked you.  I never asked, nor would I ever ask, for any favors for that most busy of all golf-days.

You need to take this back.  On top of it being wrong, in the end you gave me wrong info!  One needs to call at 6am, not 6:30.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that was an honest mistake, but lucky I called myself the day prior to make sure...

The rest I've already addressed.

One more thing:  friends don't treat each other this way.

TH

[DMoriarty]

David - whatever you meant, that was insulting to my family - my favorite group on this earth, the group I would play every freakin' round with if I could.  I only use them as an example because I feel they are VERY representative of the "average golfer".  And just why shouldn't golf and ratings cater to people like this?  You tell me.  On second thought, don't.  This has gone on far enough.

I'm sick of defending myself, to be honest, especially since I never attacked either of you...

TH

Tom, you may want to climb down off of Mount Righteous . . . I think the thin air may be getting to you.   You injected your family and their opinions into this, not me.  In fact you repeatedly inject your family and their opinions into this -- I know more about their tastes in golf than I do most of the posters on this site!  If you feel that their opinions are beyond criticism and off limits, then might I suggest you leave them out of it.

But you were merely using them as an example of a huge segment of the golfing public who shares their approach to golf course architecture, you protest.   Well SO WAS I.  

Let me rephrase my post.  I dont give a crap about what your family thinks about golf course architecture nor do I give a crap about what the masses they represent think.  Nor should the powers that be in golf.   Why??

1.  They arent exactly seeking out good architecture.  As you have said, they rarely venture away from their local par 3 unless you are around.  Therefore it doesnt make a lot of sense to cater to them, does it?

2.  Their limited exposure to courses like Moorpark is bound to influence their opinions. They might not care if they lose a bunch of balls twice a year.  They might not care if they walk if they arent doing it regularly anyway  They might not care if a course has boring greens and little or no compelling strategic design if they are only going to see the course once or twice.  

3.  They have narrow and shallow criterion for judging courses.  

In short, they arent the type of customers around which to base an industry.  

Youve gone pretty far out of your way to take insult in this case tom, especially given that I have been saying this exact same thing for a few years now.  

As for the rest of it,  Might I remind you that Tommy and I are indeed different people with different opinions.  I dont think we have ever discussed Moorpark before except for briefly off line, so I am at a loss that you think weve gone over this before.  

If you really think you and Matt have similar feelings about Moorpark you are delusional, or you have been disengenuous  in your previous discussion of the course.  



I am tired of saying this tom, but I'll say it again.  I am not attacking you but your opinion and what it represents to me.  Same goes for your family.  If you dont want  your opinions subject to attack, critique, etc., I suggest that you stop so readily offering them.  

[THuckaby2]

David:

You're right.  And you're wrong.  You make great sense.  And you're patronizing.

All the best,

TH

[THuckaby2]

David:

Posting, editing, deleting is my way of working through drafts, so to speak.  I guess I ought to use the preview key.

But I've tired of this.  As I did say in one of my drafts, if you don't know what's insulting about this, I surely can't explain it to you.

And no, I don't feel like continuing with this trial.

You win.  You are right about everything.  I take back every word I've said on this thread.

Feel better?  Great!  Congratulations counselor, you have won another case.

You might have lost a friend, but what the hell does that matter?

Focus on "might have" there, by the way.  The in-person David remains a great guy, as hard as it is to believe from all this, as I have now told at least a dozen people.

Again, all the best.  You remain a damn fine lawyer, from what I can tell.

 

TH

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

"I ain't touchin' the family side of this."

That's a given that even the most cold-hearted lawyer can, or ought to understand.  But I guess we've found the one cold-heart that doesn't.

OK, my bad for using them as an example, I guess.  But one would think a little benefit of the doubt would be given, and a little common courtesy as well...

It's like this:  if you tell me your Mom lives and dies for the Backstreet Boys, do I tell you back that she's full of shit, her opinion doesn't matter, she doesn't buy enough cd's?  Of course not.  I might politely say something like "well that's her opinion."  She's not a freakin' pawn for discussion - she's your mother.

Same thing ought to go for Dad's and brothers.

But anyway, I absolutely agree with your take here - the masses can't be ingored.  And my family group is far more representative of the masses than David likes to admit.  Oh would that people who played the same course 120 times really were the ones that mattered most... unfortunately that's not the real world.  There are HUGE numbers of golfers who play 10 times or less in a year, and in a perfect world they ought not to matter, but unfortunately financial realities dictate that they do.

But now that you're in this, you're better than me at it, you can take on Moriarty yourself.  Just be careful not to use family members as examples.

TH

[DMoriarty]

So you deleted and replaced again?  It is hard to keep up!


In one of  your phantom posts, you accused me of personally attacking you in the Raters/ Freebies post, same as you did 3,4,5 times in the actual thread.   While I dont really like you repeatedly maligning my intentions in that thread, I chose to let it lie as opposed to distracting from what I consider to be a worthwhile thread.  But since you brought it up here . . . .

I have been thinking about that topic for a while, both as it relates to reviewers and posters.   As you might have noticed above, my purpose in posting on this thread is to attack and indict the golf digest rating system, same goes for the related thread only not just limited to golf digest.   You may also recall that I am openly using your comments to do so.  

While I have no idea all the origins of the thread I believe it stems from the following:

1.  A recent rumor I heard about extreme abuses of the rating process-- dont ask I will not discuss it on or off line because it is second third hand and I dont want to hurt feelings;  2)  A conversation I had long ago with a rater about the merits of a high end course and a low end course, the day before he played the high end course (for free), 3)  My belief that is situations like these the apperance of impropriety should be avoided;  4)  Ron Whitten's gutless review of TPC Valencia and my stronger feelings after having payed to play it.  5) A respected friend recently succumbing to the tempation of the ratings game.   6) Boredom.

But dont feel too left out, this thread was definitely responsible for the timing of the other.  And while it certainly is not directed at you alone but at many of the raters and reviewers I have had contact with, your comment regarding "finding the positive" is parroted in the other thread and served as my jumping off point.   I just want to incentivize you guys to work a little harder to find the negative, as that is much more helpful than the wishy washy crap we get.

For me tom it is about ideas and discussion of those ideas.  You seem to have alot of ideas of your own until they are questioned then with you it is always taken personally.  Perhaps you should grow up a little or at least have the sense to keep your thoughts to yourself if you dont want anyone disagreeing.  

I've considered you a friend throughout this but if you cant handle my personality and my ways of communicating then perhaps you should cut me out of your friendship circle.   I dont feel I've done anything wrong and I'll be damned if I am going to change who I am because of your repeated threat to not be my friend.  I enjoyed junior high while it lasted, but have left it long behind . . . .

Better read quick as I might delete this any minute

[George Pazin]

This is starting to get entertaining, but unfortunately in a train wreck kind of way. Everyone take a couple deep breaths.

I don't read Dave M's latest posts as saying designers shouldn't design for the masses and ratings shouldn't be geared toward the masses because they don't matter in a financial sense, but rather that they don't matter from a discernment standpoint. In some cases, this means the same thing, but in others it doesn't necessarily.

Hopefully, someone else will come up with a clearer way of restating my point.

[Brad Swanson]

I agree with George, everyone take a deep breath, step back, whatever it takes to cool your jets.  There's no need for such hostilities.

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

[THuckaby2]

David:

No deletes this time, not sure where you get that.

And you've used the junior high line before.  It was patronizing then, it remains patronizing now.

I understand your motivations now, I think.  I just expect better from friends.  See, to me friendship is far more important than golf, golf courses, golf course architecture.

It's becoming more and more clear to me that such is not true for you.  Hey, in a strange way I admire you for this.  Crusaders can't worry whose feathers they ruffle.

So I make no threats, juvenile or otherwise.  I just did consider you to be a friend, and thus expected a different sort of behavior, such as that conducted on and off-line by shivas and me, or George and me, or many many many others and me.

But at least FINALLY we have crystallized our issues.  To you it is about ideas and discussion of ideas.  To me it's about that, too, but also about relationships.  I've made a lot of friends through this vehicle and those that preceded it, and it's enriched my life.  I'd gladly sacrifice any exchange of ideas for that... I see that you won't.

So I'll continue to offer my ideas, I'll just know better what to expect from you from now on.  One would think I would have learned this before, but damn I give people I consider friends such a HUGE benefit of the doubt, it takes a lot for me to just consider them "exhangers of ideas/people to argue with."

So I'll expect no benefit of the doubt from you from now on.  Funny how I get it from damn near everyone else here....

Funny also how you don't want to hurt feelings about your 2nd/3rd hand story about someone abusing the ratings process, but you have no consideration for that at all when it comes to trashing my family.  You are one unique guy, Dave!

In any case, again, I understand your motivations.  Can you see that such were difficult to discern, given you absolutely parroted my words in that "Freebies" thread?  Kinda hard for me not to take that personally, at least initially.  You're tired of raters giving positives about courses that ought to be abused (paraphrasing, don't have time to grab the actual quote) - gee, to whom were you referring there?

But I shall try not to take that personally any longer, based on this explanation.  And guess what?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your words here are sincere.

THAT is what friends do.  They also ignore little grammar-school jabs like you continue to throw my way.

TH

[THuckaby2]

David and everyone else:

I just re-read much of this and you know what?  Neither David or I sure are coming off looking good here.  Or at least I know I sure am not.  The whole thing must be entertaining, in a train-wreck way.  

But it is also embarassing, for me anyway.  My apologies to one and all for all of this.

To David:  I understand your take, I understand your viewpoint, I undertake to try and step back and look for such before assuming the worst from you to me on a personal level, from now on.  

Is that enough to bury the hatchet here?  I hope so.

Just don't ever expect me to look for the negative as much as you'd like me to, as a rater.  That's just not my way.  I answer the questions asked, turn in my forms, then if someone asks me about them, I tend to focus on the positive.  It's just not in me to do differently.  Just do remember also that neither you, nor anyone else besides the GD editors, ever sees the numbers I turn in... And I'd guess they'd surprise you at times at how low they actually are. You'll notice Moorpark won no awards.  

The hatchet is buried, from my end.

TH

[edit was to add 2nd to last sentence, which I forgot to note in my first writing.]

[George Pazin]

You can't fool me - I'll bet the original post said right where that hatchet is buried!

[THuckaby2]

Now George, you rabble-rouser... this train ain't gonna wreck again if I can help it!

That was damn good though.... major yuks out here.

 

TH

[DMoriarty]

I don't read Dave M's latest posts as saying designers shouldn't design for the masses and ratings shouldn't be geared toward the masses because they don't matter in a financial sense, but rather that they don't matter from a discernment standpoint. In some cases, this means the same thing, but in others it doesn't necessarily.

Hopefully, someone else will come up with a clearer way of restating my point.

Actually George, when I say that I dont think architects should design for masses, it is in part because I think we overrate their financial contribution or at least over-weigh it.  Now this is speculation on my part . . . I dont have the statistics to back it up, but I would be surprised if the masses (at least as described by Tom H.) are a financial force to be reckoned with in the golf architecture world, at least in the public course realm.

But even if these masses do spend most the money, I still question the reasonableness of catering to their tastes when it comes to golf course architecture.  Does it really make sense to make huge capital investments based on the opinions of golfers who dont really care that much, one way or another?  I am no economist, but when it comes to interest groups wielding political or economic power, I am a believer in the existence and efficiencies of a Madisonian reality, where a smaller group with strongly held beliefs should wield disporportionate power, when compared to a larger group with divergent but weakly held beliefs.  
__________________________

Shivas,  

Shivas, if you were a golf course owner, who would you rather rely on for your customer base:  a relatively small group of very serious golfers who play 100+ rounds a year or the masses who play 1 or 2 rounds a year?  Which group do you think is more likely to abandon you for a course with a bigger waterfall?  Which one do you think is more likely to become scarce when the economy gets tough?  

Your movie analogy fails because movies dont need repeat viewers to be successful.

Your wine analogy fails because the economic models are different.  Gallo sells because it is dirt cheap.  Obviously the problem in golf is not a glut of bargain courses.  Now if Gallo changed  the name, jacked up the prices, and put a fancy leaf on the label it would be doomed if did not increase the quality.  [Gallo did this with Turning Leaf, I dont know if it is any good or not.]  

By the way, I have never been an "entertainment lawyer" nor will I ever be one, I hope.  Talk about personal attacks . . . .