Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Michael Dugger on January 09, 2008, 06:31:15 PM
-
Guys (and gals)
Some of you I've had the pleasure of actually meeting and playing golf with. Great times.
Many of you I feel like I know through this website. Most of the old boys who've been around from the get go. Tom Paul, Mucci, Adam, Huckaby, Tommy, Dan Kelly, Cirba, Kav, RJ, Redanman, Shivas, Hancock, etc.....(apologies to those I've left out.)
I think it's great we have so many newbies to the site, it can only enhance the experience and provide fresh perspectives.
However, switching gears.....the GCA "treehouse," as it has been affectionately puned, has been taking a beating lately, IMHO.
I read so much horsebleep about how we think this, how we think that, it's beginning to make my eyes hurt and stomach ache.
So many broad generalizations being thrown about, opinions and versions of the truth which may or may not hold water......it's fast becoming The Geraldo Springer show. For the first time ever I'm starting to agree things are really going downhill around here lately.
Thus....I thought perhaps it might be fun (amongst other things) to start a thread where everyone is allowed to go back in time and recant something they may have said, felt or believed regarding golf course architecture.
Perhaps just clear the air regarding their position.
Or use this as an opportunity to state an opinion, version of the truth or long held belief.
I think we may come to learn what some seem to think "is the opinion of the treehouse" just really isn't.
So I'll go first.
I've never met Tom Doak in my life, but I still admire his approach to the art of golf course architecture. I think the Confidential Guide was trendsetting, in particular, I think it took a lot of stones to "call 'em like he sees 'em" in a time when "signature" designers seemed to be controlling the market.
If I was going to be anybody's "butt boy," it would be an honor to be his. When you are on top there is always someone trying to knock ya down. If the rest of you want the same "attention" or "love" then do something that really stimulates us! (Did that come across a little too Brokeback Mt. for ya? Opps!)
I have only played two Tom Fazio designs (Pronghorn and Aldarra) and enjoyed them both a great deal. I have ZERO problems with Tom Fazio as a designer. I think he builds a lot more interesting courses than many designers working today. This is one member of the Treehouse who is not a Fazio basher, never was.
Lastly, I'm trying my best to figure out why I should have more respect for the work of Rees Jones. Most of his courses look nice and functional, but artistically vapid. Will someone please explain to me why I should think any differently? Still waiting.......
It's 2008 and time to usher in a new era. Something I'm going to quit doing is being so PC. It's stupid. I'm no access seeker, if I play it I play it, but I am not going to kiss any ass to get on your tract, that's for sure. I'm no rater who gets free access and therefore says nice stuff, either.
I'm no writer, journalist or aspiring anything golf related.
I'm just a golfer, with a soul, who appreciates art. The more we all cave into the PC scrutiny the more and more commercial and succeptible to corruption this website becomes.
Enough of the willy-nilly, one foot in, one foot out, stuff guys, let's get back to "frank discussion." Ran has always encourged it.
Anyone dare???
-
I'll tell you what I'd argue... the following notions:
1. That this place has any one universally-held position on anything;
2. That this place has gone downhill, and is somehow worse now than it ever has been;
3. That this place is currently lacking in frank discussion.
I don't buy any of that.
But I guess you want some purging of the soul, Michael?
OK, I'm game.
I really don't give a rat's ass who designed any given course. Sorry guys. I'm into courses, not the people who designed them.
TH
-
I read so much horsebleep about how we think this, how we think that, it's beginning to make my eyes hurt and stomach ache.
So many broad generalizations being thrown about, opinions and versions of the truth which may or may not hold water......it's fast becoming The Geraldo Springer show.
Michael,
I see that you wrote this in the beginning of your thread, and thats all fine and good. But the last half of your thread, you seem to be doing exactly what you despise about the site. Giving your opinion about this and that, and making generalizations about Doak, Rees, and Fazio.
I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to figure out how this plays out in your mind? Its seems very incongruant.
-
It's 2008 and time to usher in a new era. Something I'm going to quit doing is being so PC. It's stupid. I'm no access seeker, if I play it I play it, but I am not going to kiss any ass to get on your tract, that's for sure. I'm no rater who gets free access and therefore says nice stuff, either.
I'm no writer, journalist or aspiring anything golf related.
I'm just a golfer, with a soul, who appreciates art. The more we all cave into the PC scrutiny the more and more commercial and succeptible to corruption this website becomes.
Enough of the willy-nilly, one foot in, one foot out, stuff guys, let's get back to "frank discussion." Ran has always encourged it.
Anyone dare???
I will kick this off....I couldn't tell if Newbie's were invited to comment from your thread or not, but I can tell you that the last half of your thread is the reason I wanted to start posting on this site...however after hanging out here for a while I am honestly worried that if I dare say something marginally bad about a highly regarded course I will some how lose any future chance of playing any other highly regarded course any of you guys may have ties to.
I suppose I shouldn't really care about that being I wasn't probably going to get on any of those courses through this board anyway, but the thought does cross one's mind.
I have about ten posts that I want to do discussing highly regarded courses that I just don't think are that good (or at least I don't get why they are so good and joined this board to understand maybe why they are so good), however whenever anyone steps out of line and says one of these courses aren't that good they get flamed as uninformed or uneducated or just plain ignorant.
I am honestly still sitting on the side lines evaluating how honest one can really be on this board.
So this is how the editor of Golf Magazine feels when he plays some crappy Florida course and thinks it stinks but the developer has a two page color spread ad in his magazine...oh the conflicts...
-
Here's what I think:
Whenever you get a bunch of folks together, you get some intimidation when it comes time to give opinions or answers. Just attend a conference where the speaker likes audience participation; even I shut up in that situation....usually.
In here, most of the time a differing opinion, or even a wrong answer is handled with respect and courtesy, but there are times where sarcasm and a mean spirit can creep out. That stifles discussion and chases away people. Of course, some of those people who get chased away probably have it coming, but still.....
I say give your opinions freely, even if you don't like Lawsonia. We'll try to help you figure out why you're wrong...... :)...
Joe
-
Hey, I think the small trend towards discussing holes and other courses is a bright spot.....
And, I always felt that down periods of gca.com were mostly related to my posting. I'll try to cut down....
Speaking of PC (or lack thereof) isn't the question, "Can I be Frank with you" most appropriate for a Lesbian bar? :o
(sorry, couldn't resist........) :(
-
I read so much horsebleep about how we think this, how we think that, it's beginning to make my eyes hurt and stomach ache.
So many broad generalizations being thrown about, opinions and versions of the truth which may or may not hold water......it's fast becoming The Geraldo Springer show.
Michael,
I see that you wrote this in the beginning of your thread, and thats all fine and good. But the last half of your thread, you seem to be doing exactly what you despise about the site. Giving your opinion about this and that, and making generalizations about Doak, Rees, and Fazio.
No, Kalen, that is not what I am saying at all.
If I voice an opinion it is just that, MY OPINION.
But when someone makes a broad sweeping generalization like "GCA dislikes Fazio" when it's not true, that's another thing.
There are all these "notions" thrown around and I think it's more a case of those throwing them around wishing it was that way then it actually being that way.
-
This is what I think.
Those around here should cease to ever say, "GCA thinks blah blah blah about blah."
or "The GCA Treehouse thinks blah blah blah."
It's crap. It's annoying the hell outta me.
-
Fair enough Michael...thanks for the clarification.
-
So I'm pretty new to this site, but I will give my opinions of things..
-I LIKE TOM FAZIO'S WORK! I think mostly they are fine golf courses that present great challenges and are quire pleasing to my tastes.
-If you wonder about Rees Jones, take a look at Bryan Park (CHampions) in Greensboro, NC. One of the Top 5 best Public Access courses I have ever played.
-Jack Nicklaus does high quality work as well in my view.
-Unlike some people on this site seem to speak about, I do not think that all courses should be designed in the mold of Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Chambers Bay. They work where they are and might look incredibly stupid in other locales.
-Augusta National, with all the changes is still an incredible golf course, one that I think just about everyone on this site would go to great lengths to play.
-I may have other opinions and just can't specify them at this time, if I come up with anymore, be assured they will be voiced.
-
Johnny M,
Gotta love the innocence!
Mike has a point, and I am sometimes guilty. I will try to better and stop trying to figure out what you bastards think.......... ;D
BTW this reminds me of Steve Martin's old "What I believe" bit. Turns out we share the notion that believing in 8 of the 10 commandments is quite enough, thank you. ;)
-
I find it highly arrogant and impudent when someone will pose a question or a new topic and a 'senior' member will follow it up with the statement that "We've discussed that before..."
Why can't something be discussed again, especially when the person bringing up the topic wasn't a member of GCA 2 or more years ago?
Why should the accident of when they became a member dictate what they can talk, discuss or learn about? If someone feels a subject has been talked about and decided upon in the past and they don't want to discuss it, why not simply not comment and ignore the thread completely?
Let those who want to talk about something do so... We should be encouraging discussion, even on topics that some feel have been overly discussed...
-
Phil
Good point. No law says you have to read every thread.
In fact, in about ten years, when I develop Alzheimers, I may even enjoy a daily rehashing of what we talked about yesterday or even earlier today! It will SEEM like a new conversation to both me and new posters......
-
Posting opinions can be intimidating if you aren't prepared to explain them or defend them. I actually like the pressure of really thinking about something before I put it out there. I'm a relatively new participant, but I think people here are remarkably civil given how strong their views can be.
-
Guys....I need a point of clarification.
When you have referenced PC....you are not slighting me, but are referring to the other PC kind of stuff?....right?
I have feelings too....even when I try to appear strong.
-
Paul,
We try to keep our discussions about you limited to when you aren't in the room.
:)
-
:-*
-
DAMNIT!!
I hate it when a thread is just getting going, the fur is starting to fly, the juices are flowing. Then Joe and Paul feel the need to come in to relieve the tension with some comedic relief!! :P
Let em got at it for petes sake!! ;D
-
I THINK.. Tom Huckaby summed it up best when he says he is nto courses and not the people that designed them. I AGREE 100%...BUT I THINK this site is into the people that design the courses moreso than the courses...when that trend reverses we will be on the right track.......
-
Mike- I agree with you, this site tends to look more at the person who designs the course moreso than the course itself. Does it really matter who designed Cypress Point? Not really, its still one of the best places in the world. Could Pine Valley have been done any better? Doubtful. The designer person does not matter, the course matters and should be the main subject in a golf architecture discussion. "How have golf courses evolved in 500 years, not how have golf designers evolved in 500 years."
-
I agree that the course is more important than the architect for the purposes of discussion here. At the same time, I don't see a problem with people developing "favorite" architects for selection purposes as long as you separate the connection once you go into evaluation mode.
To me it is a lot like picking a book. First and foremost, I'm looking for a good read. If I've read something from an author in the past and I really like the author's style, then I'm more inclined to seek out another book by that author. It doesn't mean that I'm going to like everything I read by that author. If I hear about a great book and I've never read the author, then I'll probably give it a try. If I've read multiple duds by someone, then I'm less likely to read more by that person.
Of course, every now and then someone comes along and writes both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and leaves you confused how one work can be so good and the other so bad.
-
It's 2008 and time to usher in a new era. Something I'm going to quit doing is being so PC. It's stupid. I'm no access seeker, if I play it I play it, but I am not going to kiss any ass to get on your tract, that's for sure. I'm no rater who gets free access and therefore says nice stuff, either.
I'm no writer, journalist or aspiring anything golf related.
I'm just a golfer, with a soul, who appreciates art. The more we all cave into the PC scrutiny the more and more commercial and succeptible to corruption this website becomes.
Enough of the willy-nilly, one foot in, one foot out, stuff guys, let's get back to "frank discussion." Ran has always encourged it.
Anyone dare???
I will kick this off....I couldn't tell if Newbie's were invited to comment from your thread or not, but I can tell you that the last half of your thread is the reason I wanted to start posting on this site...however after hanging out here for a while I am honestly worried that if I dare say something marginally bad about a highly regarded course I will some how lose any future chance of playing any other highly regarded course any of you guys may have ties to.
I suppose I shouldn't really care about that being I wasn't probably going to get on any of those courses through this board anyway, but the thought does cross one's mind.
I have about ten posts that I want to do discussing highly regarded courses that I just don't think are that good (or at least I don't get why they are so good and joined this board to understand maybe why they are so good), however whenever anyone steps out of line and says one of these courses aren't that good they get flamed as uninformed or uneducated or just plain ignorant.
I am honestly still sitting on the side lines evaluating how honest one can really be on this board.
So this is how the editor of Golf Magazine feels when he plays some crappy Florida course and thinks it stinks but the developer has a two page color spread ad in his magazine...oh the conflicts...
Chip,
Given all the places you have already played if you are worried how what you say will affect your future access you should find somewhere else to spend time. I have actually noticed the exact opposite. Say something stupid about a course and suddenly members are begging you to come see the place to show you why you are wrong. As a matter of fact, in my case, all of Great Britain wants me over there.
-
Mike- I agree with you, this site tends to look more at the person who designs the course moreso than the course itself. Does it really matter who designed Cypress Point? Not really, its still one of the best places in the world. Could Pine Valley have been done any better? Doubtful. The designer person does not matter, the course matters and should be the main subject in a golf architecture discussion. "How have golf courses evolved in 500 years, not how have golf designers evolved in 500 years."
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionmacwood7.html
If you have time, read this and let us know if you still think the person does not matter in the design process. It does to me.
-
In that case...
To name a few, I think Merion, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, Yeamans Hall, National, and Cypress are just horrible. ;)
Chip,
Given all the places you have already played if you are worried how what you say will affect your future access you should find somewhere else to spend time. I have actually noticed the exact opposite. Say something stupid about a course and suddenly members are begging you to come see the place to show you why you are wrong. As a matter of fact, in my case, all of Great Britain wants me over there.
-
Mike--You only prove my point. Crump was unknown, he was not even a professional architect. He simply had land where he wanted to build a golf course. He made it the way he wanted. While other architects visited, he was the primary designer. Does it matter that he was not a world renowned designer? No, what matters is the course he designed (with help on holes, yes I know) is awesome. My point was, the name of the designer does not mean anything. The quality of the work means more. Great designers can sometimes build poor courses, and sometimes small names designers and even amateurs can strike gold, just like Crump at Pine Valley.
Patrick--I agree with you, Pine Valley and Oakmont are real dumps... ;D
-
Mike--You only prove my point. Crump was unknown, he was not even a professional architect. He simply had land where he wanted to build a golf course. He made it the way he wanted. While other architects visited, he was the primary designer. Does it matter that he was not a world renowned designer? No, what matters is the course he designed (with help on holes, yes I know) is awesome. My point was, the name of the designer does not mean anything. The quality of the work means more. Great designers can sometimes build poor courses, and sometimes small names designers and even amateurs can strike gold, just like Crump at Pine Valley.
Patrick--I agree with you, Pine Valley and Oakmont are real dumps... ;D
I still disagree. The fact that Crump was able to bring these people together was amazing in itself.
Even when you drop down on the food chain to say my old home course at Long Island National, Bobby Jones was hired in part to add to the Jones legacy on Long Island. When you know about his battles with his brother, you start to look at some of the things he might have done to try and kick his brothers ass at Atlantic on Long Island.
Mike "You got a problem that I am not a Dead Guy" Young had a whole bunch of "Dead Guy" features at Long Shadow. Great design is driven by lots of things, and passion is one of them. I want to know who's passion it is.
I don't have much creativity in my body, but I do enjoy seeing it and sometimes bringing it together.
Just to be clear, I an not talking about a marketing pitch for a Fred Couples course, I want to know who is responsible for the actual work.
Did you read the article? Trust me it is much more interesting than the drivel thatI write!
-
I did scan through the article. It was classy. What I am meaning in general is, have you ever played a course that you thought was a good/above average course and not know the designer before you played? And then found out who the designer was and had never heard of him. Or have you played a course by a world class architect and been less than impressed..either compared to his previous works you had played or just unimpressed in general? I can say yes to both.
-
The name of the architect is not the key feature. I will think a good course is good and a bad course bad no matter who designed it and what legacy they have.
-
The name of the architect is not the key feature. I will think a good course is good and a bad course bad no matter who designed it and what legacy they have.
Michael, sorry, I don't want to hijack your thread. But....
Johnny,
The end result, the course, is the measuring stick to be sure. However, to ignore the designer is a mistake. Ever notice why certain architects get the reputation they do, both good and bad? I find a great deal to be learned about these designers and why they tended to do certain things in their courses. Finding out who the designer is beforehand will often make up the minds of certain golfers on whether they will play it because they know what they are going to get, both good and bad. Yes, the course is the most important aspect. But knowing why the course was great, good or bad can largely be attributed to the architect.
-
I here the talk about " frank" discussion.
Go to Ran's page on UK golf courses-pure class- and rarely a bad word about any course. Yet you can read between the lines and determine what courses should be played.
Fruitful discussion can be had without rude remarks made in the name of frankness.
This website is better than ever.
need proof?
Click on some of the earliest threads.
-
With this argument about, the architect doesn't matter... its all about the course..... come on.
Where else can we talk about the architect? Its not happening on the course, they don't give a damn. You don't talk about a famous painting or song and just ignore who the artists were, how is golf course architecture any different?
-
With this argument about, the architect doesn't matter... its all about the course..... come on.
Where else can we talk about the architect? Its not happening on the course, they don't give a damn. You don't talk about a famous painting or song and just ignore who the artists were, how is golf course architecture any different?
Well said Ryan.
-
"I think" thread hi-jacking is just fine.
Only an arrogant ass is offended that nobody is interested in talking about what they posited, and instead go off in a different direction.
-
I'll tell you what I'd argue... the following notions:
1. That this place has any one universally-held position on anything;
Tom,
If people have that opinion, then that’s their opinion. I don’t believe there is one particular line of thought, but golf courses architecture & people who love golf courses is a reasonably small field in the great scheme of things, so there are always going to be some similarities. I wouldn’t worry about arguing it too much. If people get into the site enough, they’ll understand what is going on. The rest aren’t worth the fight.
And there is universal thought on many subjects, but generally for good reason. If a lot of us praise Doak courses, then maybe it’s because they are that good. In saying that, I still read a lot of differing opinions on this site & I think it’s great, because many of them make me think, especially when I don’t agree with them.
The great thing about this site is that it has taught me HOW to think, as opposed to WHAT to think. I really appreciate that.
The one difficulty that I find is how fast threads grow. While many of you guys in America are posting, I’m here in Australia sleeping. By the time I look at some threads there is 50 to 100 posts already. Sometimes good posts are lost in the mêlée (sometimes this has happened to my posts, but rarely, as my posts just ain’t that good), as people continue to respond to the latest posts. Let me say, this doesn’t worry me that much, as it is excellent to see so much activity & I find I learn a great deal as I read through the various posts.
In regards to starting new threads on previously discussed topics, I really don’t think it’s a problem, but if it is mention that it has been discussed before, people need not take offence. A thread was posted earlier in the year on the 7 wonders of golf. I had started a similar topic a year earlier, so I posted a link to that thread. Well, people had a go at me on the thread & privately for posting the link, when all I was trying to do was help so people could get ideas from what was previously discussed. Sometimes it is difficult to know a persons real intent on the internet, but it’s no big deal in the end.
Of course, the one way to get noticed is to write long posts.
;D
-
Interesting thread, another in the recent line of GCA self-examination.
First, to Phillip Young, you say:
I find it highly arrogant and impudent when someone will pose a question or a new topic and a 'senior' member will follow it up with the statement that "We've discussed that before..."
I've done this from time to time. And it's not meant to be arrogant, please believe me. It's meant as a help to the poster, so he can understand why he's perhaps not getting the response an otherwise great question might warrant. What I find rude is just not answering at all and leaving him hanging... and I find this happening from time to time, especially when a repeat question is asked by a newcomer here. You know it's fatiguing to answer the same question over and over and over, so some just give up (including me)... And I know, it's lazy, but my thought is it's better to explain why then leave a guy hanging. That is, it's better than nothing.
To Andrew: good stuff. Oh, there definitely are some majority opinions here; hell Doak is worshipped by the majority and that can't be denied. But it is not UNIVERSAL... so again, if someone says "GCA worships Doak" that would not be correct, not as I see things. Most like his work, some don't, some don't care one way or the other. That's what I was getting at anyway.
To Michael D. - I haven't noticed, as you seem to, a preponderance of posts here saying "GCA says this" or "GCA says that". If that has happened, then yes it is annoying. I just haven't seen it.
As for being into courses and not architects, well... that's just me. And I suppose I did exaggerate. Let me re-phrase that to say I care a LOT more about what a course holds than who designed it. I understand those who are into the study, who do care about the personalities and their work, and more power to them. That just ain't me.
TH
-
David and others,
I am not saying you should not discuss or study the courses and not the architects.....just saying don't let the tail wag the dog withe archie being the tail.....
-
Mike,
What I am noticing is that you are changing your statement at the bottom of each of your posts lately!
Doesn't matter. No one will ever claim you have the best bottom here (or anywhere) ;D
-
Chip Gaskins,
I think your threads are great. I loved the Merion 4 and 11 discussion and found it an interesting case study in human nature that it basically ended when Tom Doak and subsequently Mark Fine agreed with you.
Keep 'em coming.
PS: You are welcome to play at my course anytime but it isn't one of the greats so you are unlikely to say anything here that will offend me.
-
But I guess you want some purging of the soul, Michael?
OK, I'm game.
I really don't give a rat's ass who designed any given course. Sorry guys. I'm into courses, not the people who designed them.
TH
I agree with Ryan.
Much like you feel it's impossible to separate aesthetics/surrounds/etc. from architecture, I think when discussing gca it's almost impossible to separate a course from it's designer. Moreover, I think it's actually useful to relate the two.
Would you have a discussion of the Sistine Chapel without mentioning Michaelangelo?
-
Mike,
What I am noticing is that you are changing your statement at the bottom of each of your posts lately!
Doesn't matter. No one will ever claim you have the best bottom here (or anywhere) ;D
Are u talking to me????
WHAT I REALLY THINK..... Hillary wins...dumps Bill for Janet Reno...Reno becomes first lady and all this golf stuff was just a passing fad......(thats better than the confidential guide)
-
George:
See my later post. My first one was an exaggerated response to what I thought Michael was asking for.
A better way of stating how I look at things is in the post I made this morning, #36.
I also think Mike Young puts it well with this:
I am not saying you should not discuss or study the courses and not the architects.....just saying don't let the tail wag the dog withe archie being the tail.....
TH
-
To Michael D. - I haven't noticed, as you seem to, a preponderance of posts here saying "GCA says this" or "GCA says that". If that has happened, then yes it is annoying. I just haven't seen it.
Actually, I think people embrace the concept as a weak means of bolstering an argument, as in:
- Everyone hates Fazio, you guys are just biased
- Everyone hates trees, but they're just too stoopid to realize trees are important
- Everyone here is a butt kisser seeking access
blah blah blah
I'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence - and yet I think I just used it to make my point! :)
-
George:
I guess some people do use that line or argumentation from time to time... I just haven't seen any great preponderance of it lately, as Michael seems to have.
I do skip a LOT of threads, though.
TH
-
Michael -
I think that functionally golf courses today are better than ever, but I wonder about their form/aesthetics.
I'd rather an experienced architect bring a unique style/aesthetic to fruition based on his own vision than to have him cherry-picking the most pleasing (or most popular) aesthetic features from a grab bag of other architects' work, past and present.
That latter approach leads to a mish-mash of a look that's ever more divorced from the natural features of a given/particular site, and makes not for a Big World of golf course architecture but for an homogenous one.
I think there are economic implications to this, as I assume a site-natural approach is a less expenisve way to build courses, while creating a look imported from another site to one not naturally suited to that look is more expensive.
There are also more subtle implications, as one of the things that makes golf unique is that its fields of play are (or can be) unique, and can ideally offer the golfer a sense of particpation in nature that's closely tied to where that golf is played, e.g. one feeling/experience of nature in the Rockies and a different one in the Plains and yet another one in the Northeast etc.
Tom D made an interesting point on another thread about the possibility of a mature architect learning/being inspired more from natural landforms than from other people's work.
Peter
-
In that case...
To name a few, I think Merion, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, Yeamans Hall, National, and Cypress are just horrible. ;)
Chip,
Given all the places you have already played if you are worried how what you say will affect your future access you should find somewhere else to spend time. I have actually noticed the exact opposite. Say something stupid about a course and suddenly members are begging you to come see the place to show you why you are wrong. As a matter of fact, in my case, all of Great Britain wants me over there.
Patrick,
You beat me to this. I don't think too highly of Cypress Point, Augusta National, Shinnecock.... ;)
-
You have to be ceative enough in your stupidity that it creates the illusion of intellectualism. My attempt to prove the Mackenzie hated The Old Course was a perfect example. Sometimes you might even end up dicovering an unknown fact.
I do wish Chip would start those threads he is thinking of...with tons of pics to boot!!